Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , most recently Ms PERSON .

NORP The applicant alleged , in particular , that he had been convicted in violation of LAW and CARDINAL ( c ) of the LAW , on the basis of a confession extracted from him against his will and in the absence of a lawyer .

On DATE the above complaints were communicated to the Government .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant was deprived of his legal capacity as he suffered from schizophrenia . He was also registered as “ category CARDINAL ” disabled ( on a CARDINAL - category scale ) for that reason .

In DATE the applicant was convicted for theft and attempted rape of a minor . He was , however , relieved of criminal liability by reason of his mental condition . The courts ordered his compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital . The applicant underwent such treatment on several occasions , most recently in DATE .

On DATE , at TIME , a group of teenagers from the GPE orphanage , as well as their CARDINAL teachers , saw the applicant aggressing a young girl in a nearby forest . The girl , who was partly undressed and covered in blood , was crying for help . The applicant tried to flee , but without success . A fight broke out , and he was apprehended and handed over to the police , who someone had called in the meantime .

On DATE the applicant waived his right to legal assistance and confessed to attempting to rape a minor ( the girl in question , P. , was DATE ) . His handwritten confession statement mentioned his past criminal convictions , but did not contain any reference to his mental condition or legal incapacity . The applicant also wrote that his confession had not been made under duress .

According to the applicant ’s submissions to the ORG , he was coerced into both signing the waiver and confessing . He further alleged that he had immediately informed the police that he was legally incapable on account of his schizophrenia , but that information had remained ignored .

Also on DATE the police questioned the eyewitnesses , who gave a detailed account of the incident and the circumstances of the applicant ’s apprehension .

On DATE the applicant was formally detained as a suspect , having been caught in flagrante delicto . He signed a statement as confirmation that his procedural rights , including his right to a lawyer , had been explained to him . He again waived his right to legal assistance .

During his questioning on DATE and a reconstruction of the crime on DATE , the applicant reiterated his initial confession , specifically stating that he had realised the victim ’s age .

On DATE an identity parade took place , at which the witnesses recognised the applicant as the attacker .

On DATE the investigator appointed a lawyer for the applicant , having been notified by ORG that he had a history of compulsory psychiatric treatment .

On DATE ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) , in a hearing which the applicant and his lawyer attended , remanded the applicant in custody pending trial . He again repeated his confession statements , and agreed that the preventive measure chosen was appropriate .

On DATE the applicant was charged with attempted rape of a minor . He was questioned as an accused in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant repeated his confession . He stated that he had been apprehended by a group of CARDINAL teenagers , who he had tried to fight off with a stick and who had hit him several times .

On DATE the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , which revealed CARDINAL bruises on his face and CARDINAL bruises on his back , possibly inflicted in DATE leading up to the examination .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( “ the Zhytomyr Prosecutor ” ) that he had been coerced into incriminating himself through “ physical and psychological pressure by the police ” , without giving further details .

On DATE the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination , which found him to be of limited criminal capacity ( обмежено осудний ) . It was concluded that he required regular psychiatric monitoring , although there was no need for compulsory medical treatment for the time being .

NORP In DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) the management of the applicant ’s local neighbourhood housing department , drew up a written character reference , describing the applicant as a quiet person about whom there had been no complaints .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s employer , a company for whom the applicant worked as a technician at the time of the events , issued a similar character reference , describing him as a responsible employee complying entirely with his job requirements .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , having examined the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment , decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti in their actions .

On DATE the forensic medical examination of P. was completed . Her injuries – multiple facial bruises and post - asphyxia syndrome – were found to fit with the applicant ’s description of events .

On DATE the victim ’s neighbour , a DATE girl , PERSON . , was questioned as a witness . She submitted that on DATE , at TIME , near to where the incident with P. had taken place , she had also been attacked by a man , whose description corresponded with the applicant ’s appearance . PERSON . had however managed to escape . She stated that she was unable to recognise her attacker .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the individuals for injuring the applicant while apprehending him . It was held that under the circumstances there had been nothing criminal in their actions .

On DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the attempted rape of Sh . , having found that there was no case to be examined .

DATE the applicant ’s colleague , who had been working with him on DATE , was questioned . He submitted that the applicant had left at TIME under the pretext that he needed to go to the toilet , and had not returned thereafter .

On DATE the applicant was indicted , and the case was sent for trial in ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that , following his apprehension on DATE , he had been ill - treated by the police . He alleged that he had been suspended from a bar CARDINAL tables while handcuffed , punched in the face , and thrown onto the floor with his hands handcuffed . He also complained that CARDINAL officers had kicked him all over , put a gas mask on him and blocked the nose vent , twisted his arms , and struck him with a truncheon on his legs and knees . The applicant submitted that he had signed his waiver of legal assistance , and had had his confession extracted under duress . He stated that his injuries had been documented in the report of his forensic medical examination .

On DATE the applicant asked to be represented by a different lawyer . His request was granted .

On DATE ORG wrote to the trial court , it appears in response to a request for information , stating that there was no reason to review the decision of DATE ( in which it refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment – see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was replaced again , upon a request by him to that effect .

On DATE the charge against the applicant was amended to include , in addition to attempted rape of a minor , grievous bodily harm .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It relied , among other things , on the confession statements he had made during the pre - trial investigation , even though he had retracted them during the judicial proceedings . The court noted that the bruises documented in the report of the applicant ’s medical examination had been inflicted on him during his fight with the people who had apprehended him . The guilty verdict was also based on the statements of several eyewitnesses who had recognised him as P. ’s attacker ( she had been unable to recognise her attacker as she had been suffering from shock ) . Furthermore , the court relied on the statements of the applicant ’s colleague confirming his absence from the workplace at the time of the incident . According to the applicant , he refused the services of a NORP - Russian interpreter at the beginning of the trial , but later changed his mind . The later request he submitted for an interpreter had been unsuccessful .

The applicant , who had legal representation , appealed . He complained , in particular , that his confession had been extracted from him by torture and that he had been coerced into waiving his right to legal representation , which was unacceptable given his mental illness and ran contrary to criminal procedural law .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction , but reduced his sentence to DATE . It agreed with the first - instance court that there was no reason to consider that the applicant ’s confession statements obtained during the pre - trial investigation had been made against his will . As regards the alleged restriction on his right to legal assistance , the appellate court noted that the applicant had himself waived that right and that the investigator had appointed a lawyer for him as soon as his mental illness had become known .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ decisions and their reasoning . On DATE the ruling was sent to the applicant .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) provides that if criminal proceedings are brought against persons unable to exercise their right to defend themselves on account of a physical or mental disability , their legal representation is obligatory starting from the moment they are arrested , charges are brought against them , or their disability becomes known .

Under LAW of the ORG , a suspect , accused or defendant may dispense with invited or appointed counsel at any stage of the proceedings . Such a waiver is possible only at the initiative of the suspect , accused or defendant and does not preclude him or her from appointing the same or a different counsel at a later stage of the proceedings . However , a waiver of counsel in the cases covered by LAW should be based on reasoning found to be satisfactory by the inquiry officer , investigator or the court ( LAW ) . Should it be accepted , the suspect , accused or defendant has DATE to replace counsel ( LAW ) . If he or she fails to do so within the set time - limit , and if his or her legal representation is mandatory under LAW of the LAW , a legal representative must be appointed by the inquiry officer , investigator or judge , depending on the stage of the proceedings ( LAW ) .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution of ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL of DATE on the application of legislation ensuring the right to defence in criminal proceedings , “ persons who are unable to exercise their right to defend themselves because of a physical or mental disability ” ( LAW ORG ) should be understood to be persons with considerable speech , sight , hearing or other defects , as well as persons who , even though recognised as having criminal capacity , have psychiatric conditions which would impede their ability to mount a defence against the charges brought against them . Such persons should be legally represented as soon as the aforementioned defects have been established .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in PERSON ( GPE ) . The land in issue was recorded in the land register as PERSON no . CARDINAL , Parcels no . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL .

By an order issued on CARDINAL DATE , the regional administrative authorities approved a land development plan for the construction of a road on the applicant ’s land .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON issued a decree authorising PERSON to take possession , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public - interest declaration , of a portion of the applicant ’s land in order to begin the construction of the road .

On DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land .

By a writ served on DATE , the applicant brought an action for damages against GPE before ORG . They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation . They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation .

On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . In his report the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of QUANTITY and confirmed that it could be classified as agricultural land . He further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the occupation became unlawful , which was identified as having occurred on DATE , amounted to CARDINAL NORP PERSON ( ORG ) .

By a judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG declared that the possession of the land , which had been initially authorised , had become unlawful as of DATE . It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works . As a result , in accordance with the constructive - expropriation rule ( occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita ) , the applicant had been deprived of his property , by virtue of its irreversible alteration , on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful . In the light of those considerations , the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation .

NORP The court drew on the expert valuation to conclude that the land could be classified as agricultural land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful in DATE corresponded to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , to be adjusted for inflation , plus statutory interest . The court further awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation ( DATE ) until the date of loss of ownership ( CARDINAL DATE ) , as well as ITL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land .

On DATE the Municipality appealed against the judgment before ORG , primarily contesting the assessment of the property ’s market value by the court - appointed expert and arguing that ORG awards for damages ought to be reduced .

The applicant lodged a cross - appeal whereby he also challenged the court - appointed expert ’s findings with regard to the calculation of the land ’s market value and criticised the expert ’s assessment methods which led , in his view , to an under - evaluation of the land .

By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG reduced the amount to be awarded as compensation concerning the adjoining land that had not been subject to occupation but that had nonetheless been damaged to CARDINAL ITL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court upheld the remainder of ORG judgment . It considered that the first instance court had awarded a sum equal to the property ’s full market value . In the court ’s view , the latter sum had been correctly determined by the court - appointed expert , who had taken into account the land ’s actual characteristics and reached his conclusions by means of a standard methodology .

The judgment became final in DATE .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant married O. in DATE . The spouses lived in GPE . On DATE their daughter PERSON was born . In DATE the couple separated . O. continued to live with the child at a different address in GPE and that place of the child ’s residence was not , at that time , a matter of dispute between the parents .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Mykolayiv , in response to an application from O. , pronounced the couple ’s divorce .

On DATE , in response to a claim brought by the applicant against O. concerning hindrance of access to the child , the GPE ORG of Mykolayiv granted the applicant rights of access to his daughter . It ordered that the applicant should be granted an opportunity to see his daughter CARDINAL times a week , including TIME stays with the applicant , the dates and times thereof to be fixed by mutual agreement in advance .

On DATE the local police examined the applicant ’s complaint concerning threats which ORG regularly made when the applicant went to see the child , as well as O. ’s refusal to let the child stay TIME with him and her restriction on the amount of time which the applicant could spend with the child . The police refused to open criminal proceedings because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence .

In DATE PERSON moved to Selydove in the Donetsk Region . The distance between Mykolayiv and Selydove is QUANTITY by road . In view of that , the applicant initiated civil proceedings asking the court to determine that the child should live with him in GPE . That claim was dismissed as unfounded by the courts with the final decision being taken by ORG ( “ the LOC ” ) on DATE .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , ORG opened proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . However , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiffs’ decision was quashed since the procedure for enforcement of a court judgment of that kind was not specified by law .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE , where O. allowed him to see the child for TIME . On DATE , when NORP and PERSON arrived for a short stay in GPE , the applicant attempted to see his daughter , but PERSON refused to let him take the child overnight . On DATE when the applicant arrived in GPE and attempted to collect the child from the childcare centre , ORG arrived and took back the child . The applicant ’s complaints to the police on account of those incidents were dismissed because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a writ of execution of judgment dated DATE . On DATE the ORG bailiff opened the enforcement proceedings . On DATE in the presence of the applicant , O. and CARDINAL witnesses , the ORG bailiff read out the operative part of the judgment of DATE and issued a resolution on termination of the enforcement proceedings , considering that the judgment had been fully enforced by so doing .

The applicant brought a challenge in the courts against the termination of the enforcement proceedings . The courts upheld the bailiffs’ decision , finding that it had been taken in accordance with the law . The final decision was taken by the ORG , which on DATE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE in proceedings concerning child support allowances , the applicant admitted that he took the child to PERSON to live with him for about one or two months per year .

NORP In DATE the applicant brought a claim for damages against O. for obstructing enforcement of the judgment of DATE granting him access rights . The courts dismissed the claim for lack of proof . The final decision in those proceedings , rejecting the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , was delivered by the ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG in GPE opened criminal proceedings following the applicant ’s complaint that ORG had refused to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the police terminated the criminal proceedings because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence . The applicant challenged that decision in the court . On DATE ORG of Mykolayiv quashed the decision of DATE after finding that the investigator had failed to substantiate his conclusion . The criminal investigation was resumed .

In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG seeking to determine anew his access rights in view of the impediments caused by O. On DATE his claim was dismissed as unfounded . However , on DATE ORG partly allowed the applicant ’s claim . It found that ORG had prevented the applicant from properly exercising his access rights and ruled that the applicant should be given the opportunity of spending DATE with his daughter during DATE during the DATE until she attained the age of majority .

On CARDINAL DATE the Selydove department of ORG bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings in relation to the judgment of DATE . On DATE the bailiffs notified O. about the judgment of DATE .

In DATE illegal armed groups associated with CARDINAL selfproclaimed entities known as the “ GPE ” and the “ GPE ” started operating in the GPE and GPE Regions , seizing control of certain parts of those regions by force . GPE ’s armed forces launched a military anti - terrorist operation against them . A ceasefire line was later put in place . Selydove is in the territory controlled by ORG , QUANTITY from the ceasefire line , and was included in the list of locations where the military antiterrorist operation was being conducted . According to information provided by the Government , in DATE certain movements of illegal armed groups had been registered in PERSON , but no active military operations had ever taken place in that area .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG seeking a declaration that ORG was unlawfully failing to cooperate in executing the judgment of CARDINAL DATE granting the applicant access rights . He also asked the court to determine that the child ’s place of residence should be his home in GPE . He argued that ORG was unemployed and had no source of independent income , and that the child was fully dependent on the child support payments which the applicant was duly making . He also argued that it was dangerous for the child to continue to reside in the proximity of a theatre of armed conflict . Moreover , there was a risk that the conflict might spread to GPE . In support of the latter assertion the applicant cited media reports according to which representatives of the so - called “ GPE ” were threatening to capture all the territory of GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . The court established that the applicant was employed and had good references from his employer , and had no recorded mental health or addiction problems . The court quoted a report compiled by the child protection authority in GPE , according to which the applicant could provide secure , wellequipped accommodation suitable for a child , and had stable employment and income . However , the applicant had failed to prove that ORG had no independent income or had failed to perform her parental duties or was engaged in unlawful or immoral conduct . The court also stated that the applicant had not substantiated the allegation that the child ’s life was in danger and the mere fact of anti - terrorist military operations taking place in the region did not prove that risk .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate the allegations that the child ’s place of residence should be changed .

On DATE the ORG upheld the lower courts’ decisions . It stated that ORG had correctly established the relevant facts and had properly applied the law . The ORG agreed with the lower courts’ conclusion that separating the child from the mother had not been justified .


Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak

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

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

At TIME on DATE , PERSON was wounded with a knife in the village of GPE . He sustained injuries to the face and abdomen , which were initially categorised as a minor health impairment and later as a severe health impairment . On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ( hereinafter “ the prosecutor ” ) opened a pre - trial investigation .

On DATE the applicant was served with an official notice informing him that he was suspected of having injured PERSON while acting together with another unidentified individual and while being under the influence of alcohol . He was suspected of having caused PERSON a minor health impairment , as defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was questioned and denied having injured A.A.

On unspecified dates the prosecutor questioned the victim , PERSON , and several individuals who had been with him on TIME of the incident . They all stated that that night they had been celebrating a birthday in the house next to the applicant ’s . At some point they had decided to go to the applicant ’s house to buy more alcohol because they had heard that he was selling it . However , nobody had let them into the house , so they had left . Soon afterwards they had noticed CARDINAL men following them – CARDINAL of them had been the applicant and the other had been unknown to them at that time . It was the latter who had assaulted PERSON with a knife ; subsequently , in an identification parade , PERSON identified his attacker as S.B.

On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation in respect of the applicant . The prosecutor ’s decision stated that during the investigation it had been established that the applicant had not injured PERSON this had been confirmed by PERSON himself and by other witnesses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The investigation in respect of the applicant was therefore discontinued on the grounds that his actions had not constituted a criminal offence under LAW . The decision stated that a copy of it had been sent to the applicant , who had the right to appeal against it within DATE . He did not lodge an appeal . The applicant later submitted to the domestic courts that he had never received a copy of that decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE S.B. became a suspect in the investigation . In the course of the investigation against GPE , the applicant was questioned as a witness once and participated in CARDINAL confrontations with PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL other witnesses . On each of those occasions the applicant signed to confirm that he had been informed about his rights and obligations as a witness , and had been warned that if he gave false testimony he would incur criminal liability under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see the contents of the protocol for witness testimonies in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant stated that on TIME of the incident he , his friend PERSON and the suspect , PERSON , had gone to the applicant ’s house to get alcohol and cigarettes . At some point PERSON had walked away from the house towards a nearby road and soon thereafter the applicant had heard screams coming from that direction . He had gone there with his car , had seen a group of young men beating up PERSON and had gone back to his house because he had not wanted to get involved . He had not seen PERSON assault anyone , nor had he known whether PERSON had had a knife .

The applicant repeated a similar account of events , with some changes , in confrontations with ORG , and the latter stated that they agreed with the applicant ’s version .

On an unspecified date PERSON was charged with causing PERSON a severe health impairment , as defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness at a court hearing . He was warned that if he gave false testimony he would incur criminal liability under Article CARDINAL of LAW and signed an oath . He was asked whether on TIME of the incident PERSON had had a knife , whether the victim and his friends had been armed , and who had attacked whom during the incident . The applicant provided essentially the same account of the events as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG found S.B. guilty of causing PERSON a severe health impairment , as defined in LAW , and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The court considered that the victim , PERSON , and the witnesses who had been with him on TIME of the incident had given consistent statements which it had no reason to doubt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , their account had been corroborated by police officers and was consistent with the items seized at the scene of the incident . The court also held that the applicant , ORG and PERSON had given conflicting statements and had changed certain details in their statements when questioned on different occasions . Accordingly , the court viewed their testimonies as an attempt to help PERSON avoid criminal responsibility and dismissed them as unreliable .

On DATE ORG also instructed the prosecutor to consider whether a pre - trial investigation should be opened in respect of the applicant and PERSON for giving false testimony under LAW .

On DATE the applicant and ORG were served with official notices informing them that they were suspected of having given false testimony in the proceedings against PERSON , as set out in LAW .

When questioned on DATE , ORG admitted his guilt . He stated that he had been afraid to testify against GPE because the latter was a former prisoner who had been carrying a knife and boasting about assaulting people . Therefore , PERSON had been afraid that GPE might seek revenge against him for unfavourable testimony . The following day the prosecutor discontinued the investigation against GPE on the grounds that he had not intended to interfere with the criminal proceedings but that he had been afraid to testify against GPE , which was “ understandable ” in the light of the serious charges against S.B.

The applicant was also questioned on DATE . He explicitly refused a lawyer , denied his guilt and refused to answer questions . On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been completed and that he had the right to acquaint himself with the case file , but he refused to do so . On DATE the applicant was charged with giving false testimony under LAW . The indictment stated that , when questioned as a witness in the criminal proceedings against PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the applicant had lied about not being present at the scene when PERSON had assaulted PERSON and about not knowing whether PERSON had had a knife , whereas it had been established in those proceedings that he had been present and had witnessed the assault .

When questioned at the trial , the applicant insisted that the testimony he had given in the criminal proceedings against ORG had not been false . In addition , he submitted that he should not have been obliged to give truthful testimony in those proceedings because he had been questioned not only about PERSON ’s actions but also about his own role in the assault . The applicant submitted that he had been suspected of having taken part in the assault ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that even though the investigation against him had been discontinued , the domestic law allowed its reopening if new circumstances emerged ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further submitted that by giving truthful testimony he might have also revealed information about his possible drunk driving on TIME of the incident or the possible unlawful sale of alcohol . The applicant therefore argued that convicting him of giving false testimony would be contrary to his right not to incriminate himself .

NORP The prosecutor contested the applicant ’s arguments and submitted that at the time when the applicant had been called as a witness , it had been established that he had not assaulted PERSON , so he had not been questioned about his own actions . The applicant ’s testimony had only been relevant for establishing ORG actions on TIME of the assault , in order to help the authorities determine all the circumstances of the criminal offence , and there had been no intention to reopen the proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of giving false testimony . The court held that the material collected in the proceedings against GPE demonstrated that the applicant had knowingly given false testimony in order to help PERSON avoid criminal liability – the inaccuracy of his testimony had been established by the court in those proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court dismissed the applicant ’s arguments concerning his right not to incriminate himself . It held that at the time when the applicant had been questioned as a witness , the investigation against him had been discontinued on the grounds that his actions had not constituted a criminal offence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the applicant had been questioned only about PERSON ’s actions and not his own . The court also stated that the applicant had not been suspected of any other criminal activity , such as drunk driving or the unlawful sale of alcohol , so his arguments in that respect were also dismissed . The applicant was given a fine of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The applicant appealed against that judgment . He submitted that he had not been served with a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue the investigation against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , so he had continued to regard himself as a suspected accomplice to PERSON applicant therefore argued that he had had an obvious interest in the outcome of the proceedings and should not have been obliged to give truthful testimony .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It endorsed the lower court ’s arguments that the false nature of the applicant ’s testimony in the proceedings against PERSON had been established ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It further stated that it was clear from the case file that before each questioning as a witness , the applicant had been informed about his rights and duties , as required by domestic law , and warned that he would be held criminally liable if he gave false testimony ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) , so he had had no grounds to consider himself a suspect . The court also reiterated that the applicant had been called to testify only about ORG actions which he had seen and not about his own role in the assault . However , ORG found that the lower court had erred when determining the sentence because it had applied an old version of Article CARDINAL of LAW . It therefore changed the applicant ’s sentence in line with the version of that provision which had been in force at the time when the applicant had given his last testimony in the criminal proceedings against PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and fined him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) .

The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law , again arguing that his right not to incriminate himself had been breached . However , on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . It reiterated that the applicant had been informed about his rights and duties as a witness and warned about criminal liability for giving false testimony , and that he had been questioned about the actions of PERSON and not about his own actions , so it must have been clear to him that his testimony could not have incriminated him .

NORP The relevant part of LAW provides :

“ It shall be prohibited to compel anyone to give evidence against himself , or his family members or close relatives . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW , valid at the material time and currently , read :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who has injured another person or caused him or her to be ill , if as a result the victim has lost his or her eyesight , hearing , ability to speak , fertility or pregnancy , or sustained another serious mutilation , or contracted a terminal or longlasting illness posing a real threat to his or her life or seriously affecting his or her mental health , or lost a considerable part of his or her professional or general capacity to work , or sustained permanent disfigurement , shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of DATE .

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who has injured another person or caused him or her to be ill , if as a result the victim has lost a small part of his or her professional or general capacity to work or was ill for a long time but did not suffer the consequences set out in LAW , shall be punished by restriction of liberty or by detention or by imprisonment for a term of DATE .

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who , during a pre - trial investigation or trial or before ORG or another international judicial institution , has submitted a false complaint , application or report of a criminal activity , or given false testimony when questioned as a witness or a victim , or has given false conclusions or explanations when acting as an expert or specialist , or provided a false or knowingly inaccurate translation when acting as an interpreter , shall be sentenced to a term of community service or a fine or restriction of liberty or detention or imprisonment for a term of DATE .


András Sajó;George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney

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

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .

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

The applicant and his wife run a company which produces and sells construction materials . On DATE the applicant ’s wife was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of fraud and association with an organised crime group . The applicant and their children protested against the detention by organising demonstrations outside the prosecutor ’s office and the prison , contacting the press and writing letters to the authorities . Following the arrest of his wife , the applicant ’s family and financial situation deteriorated ; their adolescent son underwent psychiatric treatment after a suicide attempt . The applicant ’s wife was released on bail on DATE . In DATE she was indicted and , according to information received by ORG in DATE the criminal proceedings against her are still pending .

During his wife ’s detention , the applicant wrote voluminous letters to her on a DATE basis . In them he related the events of DATE in detail and urged his wife to be brave and withstand her situation . The letters contained assurances of his love for her and his trust in God , to whom he had been praying DATE . The letters were also full of profanities and abuse directed against the authorities and , most particularly , against the prosecutor , GPE , whom he considered responsible for his wife ’s incarceration . Some included passages addressed directly to GPE or showed that the applicant had been aware that the letters would be read by the prosecutor . In his letters the applicant admitted that he felt angry and full of hatred towards the prosecutor . On few occasions he apologised to his wife for it . It also appears that in her letters to him his wife complained about such behaviour .

The applicant often took the letters , addressed to his wife at FAC , directly to ORG in order to speed up their delivery . He must have known that all the letters addressed to his wife were censored by the prosecutor ’s office . On CARDINAL occasion he apologised for the fact that a passage of his letter to his wife had not been addressed to her .

For instance , in the applicant ’s letter to his wife of DATE he alleged that the prosecutor made copies of their letters in order to masturbate when aroused by the private passages that they contained . He also stated : “ I guess his father must have had syphilis to have made such a product ( forgive me ) ” . Another passage from the letter read :

“ I love you and I miss you . And with TIME my hatred towards this son of a bitch is growing . I curse him every day , I made myself a doll [ resembling him ] and I put nails in it every day ... I see the harm being caused to our children and I curse him every day and I hope with all my strength that my cursing will have an effect . ”

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant referred to GPE as a prat ( dupek ) , an idiot ( debil ) and a bandit . He stated :

“ Our victory will be great . This prat knows that his time is over . The idiot thought that he could lock up innocent people and secure his promotion on this account . But this prat is simply stupid . ”

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant spoke of their son ’s health problems , which had led to his hospitalisation in GPE . He then stated :

“ I know you were brave during the [ identification parade at the police station ] and according to the witnesses that fool ( palant ) P. was stoned . There was no contact with him . He was clearly stoned . Even the police officers confirmed it . I think that prat is almost finished . I have talked about this case with journalists from ORG and they are going to go after him ( the son of a bitch ) ... I hope he ends up in prison ... and his friends from the mafia ( key witnesses ) will be wiping his arse . And if human justice fails to reach him , he can not escape God ’s . ”

On an unspecified date ORG indicted the applicant under LAW of LAW , accusing him of insult of a public official , LAW The latter participated in the proceedings and asked the court to proceed with the case also if the court considered that the offence was subject to private prosecution .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of insult ( zniewaga ) in breach of Article CARDINAL , rather than LAW , of LAW , considering that the offence had not been committed during or in connection with the carrying out of professional duties by a public official . The applicant was fined MONEY ( ORG ) , calculated as CARDINAL DATE rates , each equivalent to ORG . He was further ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL for the costs of the proceedings . The court considered that , DATE , in his numerous letters to his wife , the applicant had used vulgar and insulting language about PERSON In particular , the applicant had stated that the prosecutor had an IQ of below ten , had ridiculed the NORP judicial system and had a mental disorder . He also called him Satan , bastard , bandit , and stupid . The court noted that some of the insults were so vulgar that they should not be quoted in the reasoning of the judgment . The applicant had also stated that the prosecutor had cooperated with the mafia , had accepted money from criminals and had been protecting them . In CARDINAL of the letters he alleged that the prosecutor had been under the influence of drugs at work .

The court considered that the applicant ’s statements contained no opinion or actual criticism of the prosecutor . The applicant ’s intention was merely to debase the victim and insult him . His statements had not been provoked by any actions of the prosecutor .

The court concluded that although the letters had never been published , it had been the applicant ’s intention for the insults to reach Mr GPE The applicant knew that all the letters addressed to his wife were subject to censorship , and thus would be read by Mr PERSON He took the letters directly to the prosecutor ’s office and requested that they be censored as a priority . Moreover , in several letters the applicant addressed his insults directly to Mr GPE , stating for example “ P. , you bandit ” . He would also apologise to his wife that parts of his letters were not in fact addressed to her .

The applicant and the prosecutor each lodged an appeal against the judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed both appeals . The court upheld the findings and conclusions of the firstinstance court . The appellate court examined the case from the standpoint of LAW and considered that the applicant had overstepped the limits of permissible criticism .

NORP The applicant submitted that he had not been able to pay the fine owing to his difficult financial situation and that it had been commuted to imprisonment . The fine was in the end paid by the applicant ’s daughter .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , provides as follows :

" CARDINAL . Anyone who insults another person in his or her presence , or publicly in his or her absence , or with the intention that the insult will reach such a person , is liable to a fine or the restriction of liberty .

Prosecution is subject to the private procedure . "

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , prohibiting insult of a public official , reads as follows :

" Anyone who insults a public official , or a person assisting him or her , in the performance of his or her official duties or in connection with such duties is liable to a fine , the restriction of liberty or imprisonment of DATE . "


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)

Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his post as an officer in the army due to non - compliance with disciplinary rules .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG and requested the annulment of his dismissal . On DATE the chief public prosecutor submitted his observations to ORG . These observations were notified to the applicant and he replied to it in his petition of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action having regard to the “ secret documents ” submitted by ORG . These documents were not disclosed to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant ’s request for rectification of the above judgment was rejected by the same court .


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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant initiated a labour lawsuit against his employer on DATE for unpaid remunerations . After remittals on DATE and on DATE , on DATE ORG adopted a judgment in which it partly found for the applicant .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , PERSON and the GPE upheld this judgment .


Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

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

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

On DATE a LOC DATE newspaper , the ORG , published an article entitled “ The president of the court enabled his brother ’s unjust enrichment ” . The article , in substance , alleged that there were numerous failures ( propusti ) in ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG , most of which were attributable to the president of that court , ORG , against whom a number of criminal complaints had been filed . CARDINAL such complaint , filed by the applicant , as reported by the article , implied that ORG had abused his office . He had allegedly kept hidden an eviction claim filed by a private company X against his brother , PERSON , and his brother ’s company , thus enabling ORG unlawfully to make a profit of CARDINAL ( ORG ) on a DATE basis by using somebody else ’s property .

On DATE and DATE GPE and GPE each lodged a private criminal action against the applicant for defamation ( kleveta ) , claiming that the latter ’s statements were untrue and , therefore , harmful to their honour and reputation .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) designated ORG in GPE as the competent court to process the actions .

On DATE , after a remittal , the applicant was found guilty of defamation ( kleveta u produženom trajanju ) , fined MONEY ( ORG ) , and ordered to pay LAW for the court fees ( sudski paušal ) . The judgment specified that if the fine was not paid within DATE from DATE when the judgment became final , it would be converted into a CARDINAL-day prison term .

In the course of the proceedings the applicant confirmed that he had lodged a criminal complaint with the police and made a similar submission to ORG , but claimed that he had never given a statement to the PERSON relating to the allegations contained in the article . His intention was not to insult PERSON , but to draw the attention to the irregularities in the work of GPE

NORP The journalist who wrote the article maintained that his source of information was from ORG , whose identity he did not want to reveal , and that the article had been written on the basis of the applicant ’s criminal complaint only .

V.Š. , for his part , considered that the newspaper ’s source of information was the applicant . It was not true that he had kept the eviction case - file hidden and the only reason why the case had not been concluded earlier was due to an enormous number of cases pending before the said court , which was widely known . In any event , his brother was not a respondent party in these proceedings .

D.Š. submitted that the applicant had made untrue statements in the article published in the ORG about his unlawful use of business LOC owned by X.

NORP The court established that the applicant ’s submission made to a number of judicial bodies alleged , inter alia , that FAC had acted contrary to LAW for DATE by not allocating the said eviction case to another judge . The remainder of the submission contained allegations relating to GPE only . It was further established that the newspaper article contained , inter alia , the allegations from the applicant ’s criminal complaint implying that ORG had abused his office by enabling his brother ’s unjust enrichment . The court took into account that the applicant had failed to prove the veracity of his claims as he did not have a final court judgment convicting ORG in this regard . The journalist ’s statement was held to be illogical and made with the aim of helping the applicant .

In view of this , the court held that the applicant had given untrue statements about the private prosecutors through the media or in a similar way and thus committed the said criminal offence . In particular , he had made a submission to ORG and other bodies , as well as an untrue statement to the ORG about PERSON and his involvement in the said eviction proceedings , which “ undoubtedly harmed the honour and reputation of the private prosecutors ” . The court , however , did not accept that the statements could have led to more severe consequences .

Without verifying the applicant ’s financial status ( imovinsko stanje ) , the court considered that the imposed fine was adequate and that the applicant would be able to pay it within the prescribed time - limit as “ he undoubtedly ran a private legal practice and obviously had clients given that he had asked for adjournment of some of the hearings in order to attend the proceedings in his GPE cases ” .

On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant appealed . He maintained , in particular , that he had not given the said statement to the newspaper , which was confirmed by the author of the article himself . It was unacceptable that somebody be found guilty of defamation for submissions made in a criminal complaint filed against a public official . In addition , ORG himself had admitted that he had not allocated the eviction case file to another judge for DATE , and that he , the applicant , was not allowed to prove the veracity of his criminal complaint , namely that by doing so PERSON had enabled his brother ’s significant unjust enrichment .

He further submitted that he had requested the exclusion of the first - instance court single judge dealing with the case , but that she had rendered the judgment nevertheless . She had also drawn conclusions about his financial status without verifying it .

He finally proposed that the judgment be quashed and that the previous first - instance judge be excluded in the re - trial proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment in substance , endorsing its reasoning , and held that none of the other allegations made in the appeal could lead it to decide otherwise .

On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant paid the fine .

The average DATE income in GPE when the relevant domestic decisions were rendered was ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE . Financial brokers had the highest incomes , these being on average ORG CARDINAL in DATE and LAW in DATE .

On DATE the application was communicated to the respondent Government . In their observations dated CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that on DATE ORG , following a request for the protection of legality lodged by ORG , had quashed the judgment of ORG rendered on DATE and had ordered a re - trial . The impugned judgment had been quashed on the ground that ORG had ruled only on the appeal submitted by the applicant ’s representative , but had failed to rule on the appeal submitted by the applicant himself . On DATE , in the re - trial , ORG had overturned the first instance judgment of DATE and dismissed the criminal actions lodged against the applicant ( odbija se optužba ) as the criminal prosecution had become time - barred in the meantime .

In his observations of CARDINAL DATE the applicant confirmed the above information .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o izvršnom postupku ; published in ORG no . CARDINAL ) provided that once the enforcement had taken place , the debtor could request the court to order a counter - enforcement and order the repayment of what he had paid , if the document on the basis of which the enforcement had been undertaken was quashed , overturned , annulled or ceased to be in force . This LAW was repealed by LAW on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

On DATE the applicant became a member of the executive board of ORG , and subsequently on DATE he was appointed as Director General of the bank .

On DATE founded ORG in the “ GPE ” ( the “ LOC ” ) . Subsequently , ORG branch offices in GPE started collecting deposits to be transferred to offshore accounts in the “ TRNC ” .

On DATE the applicant resigned from his post as Director General and subsequently on DATE he resigned from membership of the executive board .

On DATE ORG decided to transfer the management and control of ORG to ORG ( PERSON ) . As result , a new executive board was set up and an inspector was appointed to study the administration of ORG .

On DATE the inspector submitted his report . Following an inspection of all the bank ’s accounts , the inspector found it established that ORG owed MONEY ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ORG ) and MONEY ( ORG ) to account holders . The report stated that these sums had been used by ORG to provide loans to companies owned by PERSON , the main shareholder of the bank . The applicant ’s name was also included in the list of persons who had authorisation to make the transfers . It was however stressed that the inspection had not revealed any direct or indirect responsibility on the part of the applicant in the impugned transfers .

On DATE the new executive board filed a criminal complaint against the former board members , including the applicant . It was alleged that CARDINAL people , including the applicant , had established a criminal organisation to commit fraud . The complainants stated that the former board members had set up an offshore company with the aim of collecting deposits which they subsequently used to provide irregular loans . In that connection , it was indicated that the deposits collected for the offshore account had never been transferred to the “ TRNC ” .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of aggravated fraud . According to a form explaining arrested PERSON rights which the applicant signed , he had been informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent . In the form it was further noted that legal assistance could not be provided to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present . In his police statement , the applicant explained that although he had been the Director General of the bank , he had not been directly involved in offshore banking activities , which were administered by a separate directorate . He stated that PERSON had acted as a correspondent bank for ORG . He explained that he had not put pressure on the managers of branch offices to collect deposits for offshore accounts but had known that the managers received bonus payments depending on the number of deposits they had collected for offshore accounts . He further explained that , using the deposits saved in offshore accounts , the bank had signed loan contracts with companies which were owned by the main shareholder of the bank , Mr A.B. In concluding these loan agreements , the bank had not requested any security and the agreements had been concluded on the basis of verbal authorisation , without any documents being submitted . The applicant stated that when he had become aware of the illegal activities he had quit his post as Director General of Yurtbank .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at ORG . Before the public prosecutor , and without a lawyer present , the applicant repeated his police statement . When the applicant was brought before the investigating judge , the judge allowed the applicant ’s lawyer to enter the hearing room . However , he was not allowed to take the floor or advise the applicant . During questioning , the applicant repeated his police statement and pointed out that there was no legislation or court decision that banned offshore banking activities . Following questioning , the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court against CARDINAL accused persons , including the applicant . The prosecutor accused the applicant of forming a criminal organisation and of committing aggravated fraud under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE now repealed ) . In this connection it was alleged that a company owned by PERSON had constructed real estate and that before the construction was finished the persons intending to buy the properties had been provided with real estate loans by ORG , in which PERSON was the main shareholder . In the process of concluding these loan agreements , the requisite legal documents and security had not been requested from the potential buyers , and by granting irregular loans the accused persons had allegedly committed fraud . It was also alleged that offshore banking activities had been used as a cover in order to provide illegal and irregular loans to the companies owned by the bank ’s main shareholder , PERSON A.B.

On DATE ORG held its first hearing . In the presence of his lawyer , the applicant submitted his written defence submissions to the court . He stated that he accepted the statements taken from him in custody and pleaded not guilty .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

Following a change in the domestic legislation , the case was transferred from ORG to ORG on DATE .

At a hearing held on DATE the trial court appointed CARDINAL experts . In particular , the experts were asked to clarify whether irregular loans had been provided to companies owned by the main shareholder of the bank ; whether the accused board members could be held responsible for those allegedly illegal transactions ; and whether in providing the loans the bank had complied with the domestic legislation and obtained the prior authorisations and documents that were legally required . The experts were further asked to investigate the legality of the offshore activities of ORG . On DATE the experts submitted a lengthy report to the court . At the outset , they pointed out that there was no domestic legislation which banned offshore banking activities in GPE and that the establishment of ORG had been in line with domestic law and the “ TRNC ” legislation .

At a hearing held on DATE , the court ordered another expert report . On DATE the report was submitted to the court . The experts concluded that , in the circumstances of the present case , it could not be concluded that the accused persons had committed aggravated fraud . In that connection they referred to the fact that when depositors opened offshore accounts it was clearly indicated in the relevant documents that these were offshore accounts , and therefore the depositors should have been aware of the fact that their deposits were not protected by ORG .

On DATE , pursuant to a change in the banking legislation , ORG became the competent specialised court to deal with cases concerning LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , and the applicant ’s case was accordingly transferred to that court . The new court requested a third expert report in order to calculate the damage sustained by the third - party interveners . In a report dated DATE , the experts pointed out that from DATE onwards the accused persons , including the applicant , had been responsible for a total sum of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

In the course of the hearings , several witness statements were taken , including from the managers of branch offices , who testified that they had been pressurised into collecting deposits for the offshore accounts . The applicant and his co - accused also submitted several legal opinions to the court drafted by university professors , attesting to the legality of offshore banking activities .

On DATE the GPE ORG delivered its judgment . It held in the first place that it could not be established that the accused persons had intended to form a criminal organisation . It accordingly acquitted them of this charge . As to the accusations that the applicant had been involved in aggravated fraud on CARDINAL counts , namely by providing illegal real estate loans and by using offshore banking activities to cover up fraudulent loans , the court found the applicant guilty as charged under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant was accordingly sentenced to a total of DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and a fine . In delivering its judgment , the court based its findings on the bank ’s inspection reports , the expert reports , the police statements of the applicant and his co - accused , and witness statements . The court found it established that in his capacity as Director General of Yurtbank the applicant had given authorisation for the granting of irregular loans to companies which were owned by Mr A.B.

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG at ORG submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case . This opinion was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE . After holding a hearing , ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court in so far as it concerned the term of imprisonment , stating that the sentence should be reassessed in the light of LAW no . DATE ) that had entered into force in DATE . It also upheld the acquittal of the applicant on the charge of forming a criminal organisation .

The case was accordingly remitted to the GPE Eighth ORG . On DATE the applicant requested the court to hear evidence from several witnesses , including directors of the bank and certain experts , in particular a certain PERSON The court rejected his requests on DATE , stating that the proceedings were at a stage where no more evidence was necessary . Nevertheless , at a hearing held on DATE the witness PERSON was heard and he made submissions regarding offshore banking . In his testimony , PERSON explained the development of offshore banking and maintained that , in his opinion as an expert , the acts in question had not constituted an offence at the time when they were committed by the applicant .

On DATE the first - instance court delivered its judgment . In lengthy reasoning , taking into account the decision of ORG , it decided to sentence the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment and a fine for providing illegal real estate loans , and then suspended this sentence . As to the charge of aggravated fraud through offshore banking activities , the court sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment and a fine under LAW ( f ) of LAW , indicating that this was the most favourable provision applicable to the applicant ’s case . In this connection , it was noted that the main shareholder of the bank , PERSON , had committed fraud by way of banking activities . The court further stated that although the applicant had not been officially working for the offshore bank , in his capacity as the Director General of PERSON he was aware of the fraudulent actions , and had actively participated in the unlawful activities by using ORG ’s resources .

The applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . On DATE the opinion of ORG attached to ORG was notified to the applicant ’s lawyer and on DATE the applicant submitted his written observations in reply .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the suspended sentence in respect of illegal real estate loans , holding that the statutory time - limit had expired . The appeal court further upheld the judgment of the first - instance court in respect of the applicant ’s conviction for aggravated fraud by way of banking activities .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE , the NORP region .

On DATE PERSON , a university student , disappeared .

On DATE her mother reported her missing to the NORP police department of the NORP district of GPE , which initiated a search for her . According to the applicant , on TIME of DATE the police searched his flat without drawing up a record . They then searched his car . According to police records , the applicant ’s car was searched CARDINAL DATE in connection with ORG ’s disappearance by an investigator of the ORG police department .

After the search the applicant was taken to the ORG police department , where he was interviewed about PERSON ’s whereabouts . He stated that he knew PERSON and had last seen her on DATE but was unaware of her whereabouts . A record of his “ explanation ” ( объяснение ) was drawn up by operative officer PERSON

According to the applicant , police officers beat him up in order to extract information from him about ORG ’s whereabouts .

According to the Government , after being interviewed the applicant was released and later taken again to the police station . A record drawn up by operative officer PERSON states that at TIME on DATE the applicant was taken in for committing petty hooliganism in the vicinity of the police station by swearing at passers - by . It is stated in the record that he had no injuries . According to a decision delivered by the acting head of the ORG police department in administrative proceedings conducted DATE , the applicant was found guilty of petty hooliganism and fined . At TIME that TIME his administrative detention was ordered by the police .

The applicant was detained at the ORG police department until TIME on DATE . He was then taken to the Sovetskiy police department , where further operative measures in connection with ORG ’s disappearance were carried out .

According to the applicant , he was subjected to beatings and given electric shocks by police officers of the Sovetskiy police department in order to make him give information about I. ’s whereabouts . He allegedly had a cap put on his head so that he could not see anything and was taken by car out of town , where he was beaten up and given electric shocks with wires attached to his little fingers . His mouth was taped so that he would not scream . When he was ready to give a statement in order to stop the torture , he was taken to a river bank and shown a dead body . He was thrown on the ground and kicked . When taken back to the Sovetskiy police department , he made a confession statement to an investigator in the presence of the same police officers who had illtreated him .

According to the applicant ’s “ explanation ” ( объяснение ) given to investigator PERSON prosecutor ’s office of GPE on DATE , he confessed to the murder of NORP by strangulation . He also stated that he had been beaten up and had received all his injuries at the NORP police department , but had not been subjected to any illtreatment at the NORP police department , and had no complaints against its officers . The applicant was then taken to the place where he had allegedly hidden ORG body . According to a record drawn up by investigator PERSON , an examination of the place was carried out TIME , and a woman ’s body was recovered .

At TIME on DATE investigator PERSON arrested the applicant as a suspect and questioned him QUANTITY , and then CARDINAL and TIME , in the presence of P. , a ORG - appointed lawyer invited by investigator PERSON The applicant reiterated his earlier selfincriminating statements , as well as the statements concerning his illtreatment at the LOC police department . He also stated that he had burnt ORG ’s body after he had strangled her . TIME and CARDINAL p.m. his statements were verified at the scene of the crime by investigator PERSON in the presence of lawyer PERSON and operative officers of the Sovetskiy police department . The applicant also showed where he had hidden the victim ’s mobile telephone .

On DATE investigator PERSON ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant . DATE an operative officer of the Sovetskiy police department took him to ORG . An expert recorded multiple bruises and abrasions on his face , head , trunk and upper and lower extremities . The applicant stated that the injuries had been inflicted after his arrest on DATE by police officers who had punched him in the head and different parts of his body and beaten him with a rubber baton on the back and legs . The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted by a blunt object DATE before the examination .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as an accused by investigator PERSON in the presence of lawyer PERSON confirmed his earlier selfincriminating statements and statements concerning his alleged illtreatment at the NORP police department .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered the applicant ’s detention at a hearing in the presence of lawyer PERSON was placed in detention facility ORG . In the criminal proceedings that followed the applicant was represented by a lawyer hired for him by his family .

On DATE investigator PERSON communicated the applicant ’s allegations concerning the unlawful actions of the police officers from the Severnyy police department to the LOC prosecutor ’s office of GPE . An investigator of that prosecutor ’s office carried out a pre - investigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s complaint . His CARDINAL decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were annulled by his superiors on the grounds that they had been based on an incomplete inquiry .

In the most recent refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence that the officers of the NORP police department had committed a crime , the investigator established the facts as follows , relying on the police ORG statements . On DATE certain operative officers of the criminal search unit of the ORG police department carried out operational - search activities in connection with ORG ’s disappearance . In order to check the applicant ’s involvement in ORG disappearance they took him to the NORP police department with his consent and interviewed him . After receiving his “ explanation ” PERSON released him . That evening PERSON took him to the police station again for swearing on the street near the police station . From CARDINAL TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE the applicant was detained in a cell for administrative offenders . He was then taken to the Sovetskiy police department . No physical force was used against him , and no complaints were made by him .

NORP The investigator noted that on the CARDINAL occasions the applicant had been taken to the ORG police department DATE , for giving statements in relation to I. ’s disappearance , and second , for having committed the administrative offence – he had had no injuries . In the same decision the investigator suggested that the applicant ’s injuries could have been inflicted by a third party outside the ORG police department , DATE , CARDINAL before his medical examination by the forensic expert on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant also complained about the unlawful actions of officers of the Sovetskiy police department , explaining that he had blamed the officers of the ORG police department for all his injuries for fear of reprisals from the officers of the PERSON department , in whose hands he had been at the time . An investigator of the LAW district prosecutor ’s office of GPE carried out a preinvestigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s complaint . His decision of DATE was annulled by his superior as unlawful and unfounded .

In the most recent refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed , the investigator found , relying on statements by the operative officers of the Sovetskiy police department , that the applicant had been taken to the station with his consent and had confessed to the murder of I. He had also shown where he had hidden her body voluntarily , without any coercion .

An appeal by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE against the ORG decisions was not examined by ORG because by that time he had been convicted by a final judgment , as was stated by the court in a letter of DATE .

At his trial the applicant pleaded innocent and submitted that he had given the self - incriminating statements at the preliminary investigation stage as a result of physical coercion by officers of the Severnyy and Sovetskiy police departments . His counsel requested that the records of the investigative measures carried out on DATE , DATE and DATE be declared inadmissible , arguing , inter alia , that they had been obtained in the presence of lawyer PERSON , who had been invited by investigator PERSON in breach of the relevant procedure and without the applicant ’s consent .

ORG dismissed the request , noting that all investigative measures since the applicant ’s arrest as a suspect on DATE had been carried out in the presence of lawyer PERSON , there was no evidence that the applicant had rejected her services . Following his confession , recorded in his “ explanation ” to the investigator of DATE , the applicant had shown where he had hidden ORG body , which had not required the presence of a lawyer . The court based its findings on the selfincriminating statements given by the applicant in the preliminary investigation , noting that his allegations of illtreatment in police custody had been examined and dismissed by the Sovetskiy and NORP district prosecutor ’s offices in decisions of CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG examined a disciplinary case against lawyer PERSON which originated in a complaint by the applicant . It found that PERSON had defended the applicant at investigator PERSON ’s direct invitation , surpassing ORG in breach of the relevant procedure . P. was subjected to disciplinary liability in the form of a warning . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant of its decision , explaining that there was nothing to suggest that P. had failed to properly defend the applicant . However , it had established a breach of the procedure for providing legal assistance at the invitation of the investigating authorities .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on an appeal by the applicant , fully endorsing the trial court ’s findings .

Applications by the applicant for supervisory review of his case were dismissed by ORG .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She has been receiving treatment for a pituitary brain tumour since DATE . In DATE , she underwent surgery to remove as much of the tumour as possible . In DATE she received a variety of treatments for her condition . In DATE she became the patient of PERSON , a consultant endocrinologist . He referred her for an MRI scan of the tumour , performed DATE , and monitored her condition in DATE . In DATE , at the request of PERSON , the applicant underwent another MRI scan . This indicated that there had in fact been no significant change since DATE , but the tumour remained large . The applicant also underwent CARDINAL types of test to determine her level of growth hormone .

Dr B received the result of the first test on DATE . He spoke by phone with the applicant , telling her that the tumour was very unsatisfactory . Prior to that conversation , the applicant was under the belief that the operation in DATE had removed almost the entire tumour . She therefore understood the information given to her by Dr B about the tumour to mean that it was growing rapidly , gravely endangering her health .

The applicant was prescribed a newly - available drug to treat her condition , to be injected by her general practitioner on a DATE basis from DATE . As the drug led to severe gastrointestinal side effects within a short time , Dr B reduced the dosage by half . It appears there were no side effects following the injections of DATE and DATE . At DATE the applicant was unwell , and was hospitalised in DATE suffering from vomiting , diarrhoea , severe exhaustion , headaches , cramps and muscular spasms in her arms and legs . A blood test indicated that she was also severely hypothyroid . It was later established that this was a side - effect of the drug , not known at the time .

The applicant had further discussions with Dr B about her condition and treatment . Dr B proposed to defer the next injection until DATE . The applicant received CARDINAL more injections , in DATE . From DATE she became the patient of another endocrinologist .

In DATE the applicant commenced civil proceedings in ORG against PERSON and the hospital . Her case in negligence was that PERSON B had failed in his duty of care towards her in the prescribing of the drug and the monitoring of its administration to her . She further argued that her consent to the treatment was vitiated for lack of sufficient information , or for misinformation , about her condition and the appropriateness of the medication proposed to her .

The applicant ’s statement of claim was served on the defendants in DATE . Dr B entered his defence in DATE , seeking further and better particulars from the applicant , which the applicant ’s solicitor provided in DATE . The hospital entered its defence in DATE , and also sought further and better particulars .

According to the ORG , DATE TIME motions seeking various forms of interim relief were brought before ORG and decided in relation to the case .

NORP In DATE , the case was included in a procedure before a judge of the ORG known as a “ positive callover ” . The purpose of this was to assign hearing dates to cases that had already been waiting for a considerable period of time . A hearing date in DATE was set for the case .

In DATE the applicant ’s solicitor replied to the request for further and better particulars made by the second defendant in DATE . The hearing commenced on DATE and took place over DATE . CARDINAL expert witnesses appeared for the applicant and CARDINAL for the defence . The hearing concluded on DATE . Judgment was given on DATE .

The High Court ruled against the applicant on all grounds . The judge preferred the evidence given by the witnesses appearing on behalf of the defence , deeming their qualifications to be more relevant to this specialised area than those of the experts retained by the applicant . He found that Dr B had complied with the therapeutic indications on the data sheet of the drug . The doctor ’s decision to place the applicant directly on the long - acting form of the drug was supported by the expert opinion given on his behalf . The judge did not accept that Dr B had failed to monitor adequately the effects of the drug on the applicant during DATE that she received it . Likewise , he rejected the claim that the doctor had failed in his duty of care in the manner in which he had explained the proposed course of treatment to the applicant and the possible side effects .

On the question of consent , the judge considered that while the applicant had misunderstood the exact state of her tumour , this was not to be blamed upon PERSON , who had fulfilled his legal duty by giving her accurate and appropriate information about her condition . The applicant ’s mistaken impression was neither caused nor contributed to by the doctor ’s explanations . He found that Dr B had not been aware of the applicant ’s misunderstanding and could not be blamed for the deficiencies in her knowledge of her condition . Moreover , he had given sufficient warning to the applicant regarding the gastro - intestinal side effects of the drug . Other potential side - effects ( gallstones , hepatic dysfunction ) had not been raised , but as they had not in fact materialised there were no grounds for complaint . The judge concluded that the applicant had given her valid , informed consent to the treatment .

The applicant appealed against the judgment , advancing numerous grounds . The appeal was filed on DATE . It remained pending before ORG until it was transferred to the newly - established ORG on DATE . The hearing of the appeal took place on DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG addressed CARDINAL issues . First , regarding the treatment of the applicant with the particular drug , it saw no basis to criticise the findings of the trial judge . His preference for the evidence of the GPE experts was rationally grounded , and his rejection of the applicant ’s criticisms of PERSON was based on careful consideration of the evidence .

Second , on the issue of consent , ORG reviewed the evidence about what Dr B knew of the applicant ’s understanding of her condition . It rejected her claim that ORG had made a clear error on this point . It considered that PERSON actions had been in keeping with the relevant domestic legal principles . It noted that PERSON opinion at the time was that the applicant had a serious condition that required treatment . As surgery was not possible , the only alternative was medication . It was , ORG held , reasonably open to him to hold that view . He had explained to the applicant the expected benefits of the drug prescribed , as well as the unpleasant side effects . As for the argument that the doctor should have also presented a “ do nothing ” option , ORG described this as “ somewhat unreal ” . Where a person seeks referral from a general practitioner to a specialist , it could be reasonably assumed that they wished to receive treatment , and that they had excluded the non - treatment option .

The applicant sought leave to appeal . On DATE ORG refused .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

The applicant is married and has CARDINAL children . Prior to her early retirement she had been employed and had paid her social security contributions to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called “ EWK ” pension .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her daughter ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic asthma and that she was in need of her parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early retirement pension .

ORG suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s employment was dissolved by a mutual consent of the parties .

Consequently , on DATE ORG decided to start payment of the retirement pension starting from CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG had asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE the ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .

By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . It follows that the applicant was never paid the pension . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .

The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .

A professional lawyer , who had been either hired by the applicant or appointed to represent her under a legal - aid scheme , prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second - instance judgment on the applicant ’s behalf .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the cassation appeal .

The applicant ’s pension was revoked DATE before the planned first payment . It follows that she never received any payment of the granted early retirement .

According to the ORG ’s submissions , after the revocation of her pension , the applicant worked between DATE and DATE on the basis of a civil law contract . On CARDINAL DATE she started working on the basis of an employment contract and she is still working on a permanent basis .

The Government also submitted that the applicant ’s gross DATE income amounted to CARDINAL . PERCENT of the average brut salary in GPE in DATE ( MONEY [ FAC ] , approx . MONEY [ ORG ] ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . ORG CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL . ORG CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) and PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . ORG MONEY ) . In DATE the applicant had no income .

Additionally , on DATE the applicant became eligible for an early retirement pension not connected with the state of health of her child . The pension amounted to ORG CARDINAL net ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) . It follows that as of DATE the applicant ’s income consisted of both her salary and the early retirement pension .

The applicant submitted that she could not terminate her employment contract earlier than on DATE because she had to train a new employee who would replace her at work and because of her financial commitments towards the employer . As regards her financial situation she submitted that the income in the period directly following the revocation of her pension and the following DATE was “ CARDINAL ” . She also submitted a copy of the decision of DATE issued by ORG ( Ośrodek Pomocy Społecznej ) granting her a social care benefit for persons whose income per family member fell below the statutory threshold ; according to the reasoning of the decision the applicant ’s family ’s income at the relevant time amounted to ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) ; the income per member of the applicant ’s family thus amounted to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) . At the relevant time the threshold which enabled the applicant to claim the social care benefit was ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) of income per family member .

The applicant further submitted CARDINAL calls for payment addressed to her and issued by ORG on DATE and on DATE confirming that she had debt resulting from unpaid rent which amounted to ORG . EUR CARDINAL ) and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) respectively .

The Government also submitted that the applicant ’s husband had worked DATE and DATE , that her son PERSON had worked DATE and DATE and her other son ORG had worked as an adolescent employee DATE and DATE and , subsequently , on the basis of an employment contract as of DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Morocco)

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

The applicant is currently in GPE .

In DATE he was granted a temporary residence permit in GPE which was made permanent in DATE . Both permits were based on the applicant ’s family ties , but he was not granted NORP citizenship . In DATE he married a non - NORP national who held a permanent residence permit in GPE .

In DATE ORG ( Säkerhetspolisen ) applied to ORG ( PERSON ) requesting the applicant ’s expulsion . During ORG examination of the request , the applicant applied for asylum , claiming that he was in need of international protection . He further contested ORG request alleging that , since ORG had branded him a terrorist , he would risk torture and CARDINAL years’ imprisonment in GPE . He submitted that he would be forced to confess to an act of terrorism that he had not committed . The applicant stated that his parents lived in GPE and he had visited them DATE . During the visit , police officers had approached him and informed him that they were monitoring him and advised him to “ listen to our friends in GPE or stay away from GPE forever ” . He acknowledged that he had left GPE legally with his own passport , that he had not been wanted in GPE , that there were no legal proceedings pending against him and that he had never published anything on , for example , religion or politics . Moreover , to his knowledge , his parents had never been approached by the authorities because of him and the NORP authorities had never contacted him in GPE . However , he claimed that ORG would inform the NORP authorities of the reasons for his arrest and expulsion and other NORP in GPE might also submit such information . He was not aware if his situation had been noted in GPE . The applicant referred to country information about GPE according to which physical ill - treatment and arbitrary detention occurred , in particular of suspected terrorists . Such persons had been tortured into confession and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment . He also referred to the ORG ’s case law .

On DATE ORG granted the Security Services’ request to expel the applicant and , at the same time , rejected the applicant ’s demand for asylum and international protection . It noted that the human rights situation in GPE had improved significantly . Violence at police stations and prisons had decreased . Imprisonment was common in terror - related cases and persons affiliated with NORP movements ran a higher risk of being subjected to violence . Older reports contained accounts of torture and illtreatment in cases concerning national security and terrorism . However , the NORP authorities had publicly stated that the fight against terrorism should not be used as a pretext for depriving people of their rights . Torture was illegal and efforts to curb the use of torture had been successful . In terror - related cases , arrested suspects were examined by doctors before and after interrogation to prevent the use of violence by the interrogators .

As concerned the applicant ’s situation , ORG found no reasons to question ORG assessment of the applicant . In this regard , it found that the applicant lacked credibility since his submissions relating to his background and previous activities were contradicted by the information submitted by ORG . Moreover , the ORG considered that he had not made out that the NORP authorities had previously showed an interest in him . It took into account that he had lived outside GPE for DATE and that , as he said himself , he had lived an inconspicuous life in GPE without political or religious activities . Furthermore , after his last visit to GPE , he had left the country legally using his passport . His parents in GPE had not reported any visits from the authorities enquiring about him and the NORP authorities had never contacted him in GPE . They had never requested his extradition either , or informed him that he was suspected of terrorism or any other kind of criminality . He had never been convicted of any terrorrelated crimes in GPE . The ORG observed that the applicant had submitted that he was not sought in GPE , that he had not been involved in any legal proceedings there and that the NORP authorities had never subjected him to any acts of persecution in the past . As late as towards DATE , the applicant had travelled internationally using his passport , without being stopped . Even though older “ country of origin ” reports included accounts of ill - treatment , the most recent reports instead spoke of measures taken by the NORP authorities aimed at reinforcing the rule of law .

As concerned the risk upon return because it was ORG which had requested the expulsion , ORG found that the applicant had not made out that he risked persecution upon return on this ground . It took into account that no objective evidence suggested that the NORP authorities were aware of his case and that the legislation had regard to the possible risks of being labelled a terrorist and had been designed to avoid such risks .

ORG concluded that , even taking into account the applicant ’s submissions , it shared ORG assessment and considered that there were grounds to expel the applicant with reference to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of GPE ( lagen [ CARDINAL:CARDINAL ] om särskild utlänningskontroll ) . It thus rejected his request for asylum and international protection , revoked his permanent residence permit and ordered his expulsion to either GPE or another specified country . It also decided on a lifelong ban on returning to GPE .

The applicant appealed to the Government , submitting that ORG assessment had been accepted by ORG without a careful examination , rendering the proceedings unfair and partial . He maintained his claims and stressed that the use of torture was frequent in GPE , in particular in relation to suspected terrorists .

ORG forwarded the appeal to ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) in accordance with LAW . The ORG maintained its stance and stated , inter alia , that the applicant had not made it probable that he was of interest to the NORP authorities and there was no concrete information indicating that they should be aware of what had happened to him in GPE . ORG stated that it was as transparent as possible but , for reasons of confidentiality , could not reveal its working methods and sources . It added that it was continually assessing whether it was possible to enforce the expulsion . If information were to emerge which raised the issue of impediments to the expulsion , the Government would be informed .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , the appellate court shared the reasoning of ORG and decided to recommend that the Government uphold the ORG ’s decision . It found , inter alia , that there was nothing to support that the applicant at that point in time was known by the NORP authorities and of interest to them .

On DATE the Government upheld ORG decision in full . The Government noted ORG submissions concerning the applicant ’s background and connections and found that there were no grounds for questioning these submissions . In view of what was known about the applicant ’s former activities and other circumstances , the Government concluded that it was reasonable to fear that the applicant would commit or participate in committing a terrorist offence which warranted his expulsion in accordance with GPE .

On DATE , following the interim measure indicated by ORG , the Government decided to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order until further notice .