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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is an internationally active entrepreneur in the media sector and chief executive officer of the media company ORG GmbH.

He also holds the position of Vice - President of ORG and President of ORG . In DATE the former mayor of GPE , PERSON , publicly honoured the applicant for his efforts to improve ORG relations .

On DATE , the DATE newspaper ORG published an article about an investigation into corruption against ORG slightly changed version was also published on the newspaper ’s website . The online version , which was the subject of the domestic proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows ( emphasis added and names abbreviated by ORG ) :

“ [ L ] ORG a ORG

By [ R. B. ]

Published : DATE

GPE , DATE A company owned by [ ORG ] , the cosmetics heir and former GPE mayoral candidate , is under investigation by federal prosecutors over allegations that it paid MONEY in bribes to NORP officials for a valuable television license , according to lawyers and ORG documents .

GPE attorney in GPE , [ M.W. ] , has empaneled a grand jury and issued subpoenas , and prosecutors are studying CARDINAL pages of documents from ORG enterprise , which [ ORG ] founded in DATE as part of a plan to build a media empire in LOC . It now owns television stations in several ORG and NORP countries .

In a ORG filing in GPE DATE , [ M.W. ] sought the corporate documents , saying that they were needed for a criminal investigation into whether [ R.L.]´s ORG had ‘ made corrupt and unlawful payments to NORP officials’ in violation of ORG , the federal law that prohibits NORP companies from paying bribes abroad . [ ORG ] and the company did not challenge the request and turned over the documents , a lawyer said .

The payments being examined took place in DATE after Ukraine´s licencing body granted a potentially lucrative licence to [ R.L.]´s company despite the fact that ORG had imposed a ban on new licences .

In GPE , NORP Media controls the most popular station through its majority - owned subsidiary ORG .

Prosecutors are studying CARDINAL transactions related to ORG GPE investment , according to documents and persons close to the investigation . In CARDINAL , prosecutors are trying to determine if ORG company paid MONEY to CARDINAL NORP businessmen living in GPE , who then distributed it to some members of GPE ’s television licensing board .

... [ ORG ] ’s bid to gain the television license in GPE began in DATE . DATE , he met in GPE with [ GPE ] , a top adviser to GPE President [ PERSON ] , to discuss business opportunities .

The initial meetings between [ ORG ] and his representatives and [ ORG ] were not promising . ...

[ ORG ] suggested that [ ORG ] team up with a new NORP television broadcasting company , ORG , in GPE , and he did . The principal owners were [ ORG ] and PERSON , well known around GPE for their influence and wealth . Less well known were their ties to NORP organized crime , according to reports by the ORG and NORP law enforcement agencies .

[ ORG ] , who no longer has an interest in CARDINAL + CARDINAL , has denied any links to NORP organized crime . Mr. PERSON did not respond to e - mail inquiries seeking comment on the licensing deal and the ORG ’s claim of his ties to organized crime , although an assistant confirmed that he had received the inquiries .

A DATE ORG report on NORP organized crime in GPE described Mr. PERSON as a gold smuggler and embezzler , whose company in GPE was part of an international organized crime network . He is barred from entering GPE .

Besides Mr. PERSON and [ ORG ] , there were other , silent owners of ORG . In CARDINAL internal fax , in DATE , [ J ] described the Studio CARDINAL + CARDINAL shareholders as ‘ ‘ extremely ORG people whom , she added , ‘ I will not mention on this fax.’

ORG now owns PERCENT of Studio CARDINAL + CARDINAL , and Mr. PERSON owns PERCENT , according to public statements .

At the time it went into business with Mr. PERSON and [ ORG ] , ORG did not conduct investigations into their backgrounds , according to a report by [ ORG ] ’s GPE law firm , [ D.&P. ] .

In their CARDINAL report , which the prosecutors now have , the firm ’s lawyers said that [ ORG ] had been justified in dealing with Mr. PERSON and [ ORG ] because they had been highly recommended by [ ORG ] , whom the lawyers described as ‘ an ardent supporter of free - market FAC .

The lawyers also concluded that ORG had not engaged in any illegal or improper activities . They said they could not rule out the possibility that FAC had made improper payments , though they did not believe it had .

The GPE ’s television licensing board issued a broadcast license to ORG CARDINAL not only in spite of ORG ’s moratorium , but with CARDINAL of the board ’s CARDINAL members present ; the law required CARDINAL members for a vote .

DATE after the license was issued , ORG transferred MONEY to ORG , according to a ORG . That is the second transaction being looked at by prosecutors .

The GPE company was indirectly owned by ‘ many high NORP PERSON according to a second C.M.E. document , which did not name them .

A third document shows that ORG had paid this amount to a company in GPE owned by Mr. PERSON , ORG , and that ORG had paid the license fees on behalf of ORG . ORG is part of a NORP organized crime network , according to GPE and NORP law enforcement reports .

It is not clear why such a circuitous route was used , and a person involved in the transaction , with inside knowledge of the owners of ORG , said the MONEY payment was not for a license fee . He would not say what it was for .

ORG officials were nervous about the license they won , and sought the opinion of CARDINAL law firms in GPE . Both acknowledged ‘ the potential weaknesses’ of the broadcasting license , according to a C.M.E. document . DATE , ORG had secured a letter from the NORP justice ministry stating that the license was valid .

Federal prosecutors , who opened their case in the wake of a number of private lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of the license award , have been examining documents for DATE , and the exact status of the investigation is not clear . ”

On DATE , before publication of the article , the journalist had notified the applicant , via an email to CARDINAL of his employees , of the planned publication and had asked several questions . On CARDINAL DATE the journalist had made a follow - up telephone call to the employee , who confirmed that the applicant had received the questions . However , the applicant refrained from answering the questions or commenting on the planned publication .

Since DATE the article , showing the date of first publication , is retrievable from the website of ORG . It can also be found through online search engines such as “ Google ” or “ GPE .

NORP On DATE the applicant sought injunctions against certain parts of the article ( highlighted in the article , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , published in the print and online versions .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s action inadmissible due to lack of international jurisdiction on the part of the NORP courts . It found that , at the material time , the print version of ORG was not distributed in GPE and that the Internet version of the newspaper was not directed at a readership in GPE . ORG confirmed that decision by its judgment dated DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the part of the decision regarding the applicant ’s claim for an injunction against the challenged statements in the online version of the article and referred that part of the action back to ORG . The court held that the online version of the newspaper was accessible from GPE , and because it mentioned a NORP businessman in the article , the publication had a direct connection with GPE and NORP jurisdiction . It therefore affirmed the international jurisdiction of the NORP courts in that respect .

On DATE ORG decided on the part of the dispute which had been referred back to it by ORG . It granted the injunction in so far as the article stated that the applicant had been banned from entering GPE , and dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’s action for lack of merit . ORG held that NORP law was applicable with regard to the online publication , as the article was accessible in GPE via the Internet and therefore the alleged violation of the applicant ’s reputation had at least occurred in GPE .

The court accepted that the statements interfered with the applicant ’s reputation and personality right ( allgemeines ORG ) as protected by LAW and LAW ) . However , as the statements had been made in the press , which was constitutionally protected pursuant to LAW , it was necessary to balance both interests . Moreover , as the statements concerned a suspicion against the applicant , the presumption of innocence arising from LAW and from NORP law also had to be taken into account . The court held that there was in principle a public interest in reporting on criminal offences , including the suspicion of their commission . On the other hand , continued the court , the interference with the rights of personality associated with such reporting required higher standards of care for newspaper reporting , because even if the investigation was later discontinued , “ something of the accusation might stick to the person affected ” . Therefore , concrete , provable connecting facts which go beyond a vague , intangible suspicion were required , the reporting must concern an incident of great weight and the suspicion must be identified as such . In addition , the reporting must be balanced , the journalist must not fail to report on exculpatory circumstances and the person concerned must , as a rule , be invited to make his own comments before publication .

As regards the statements at issue , ORG held that there was a great informational interest on the part of the public in the reporting that the applicant , as a NORP businessman internationally active in the media sector , was suspected by the secret service of being involved in gold smuggling , embezzlement and organised crime . This assessment was not changed by the fact that the applicant had been mentioned by name in the article , or by the fact that when the article was published in DATE , the criminal offences mentioned therein had occurred DATE previously . Regarding the latter the court pointed out that the criminal offences had become relevant again , due to new suspicions regarding the involvement of a former mayoral candidate . For the understanding of these suspicions it had been necessary to elaborate on the companies and individuals , including the applicant , involved in the alleged corruption . Similarly , describing the suspected criminal backgrounds of some of the persons involved had been necessary for the ORG comprehension of the allegation . The court also took into account that the article remained accessible in an online archive of the DATE newspaper . It held that there was a recognised public interest not only in information on current events but also in being able to research events from recent history .

The court further considered that the reporting was free from polemic statements and insinuations , and made it sufficiently clear that only insights from ORG reports and the law - enforcement authorities were being reported . This was expressly pointed out in the challenged article with the words , " according to reports by the ORG and NORP law enforcement agencies " . The internal ORG report was confirmed by reports of several other law - enforcement agencies , and the applicant himself , while denying any criminal activities , confirmed certain facts mentioned in those reports during the proceedings . Furthermore , the author of the article had notified the applicant via email that the article would be published . In that context the court also considered that although the applicant had been aware of the defendant ’s reporting even before the article had been published , he had waited for DATE before applying for an injunction against the defendant . Therefore , the applicant had not perceived the interference with his personality right as intolerable .

In sum , the court concluded that the defendant had complied with the required journalistic duty of care and that the reporting had relied on sources and background information , which the journalist could reasonably consider reliable . Therefore , the informational interest of the public outweighed the concerns of protecting the applicant ’s personality right , even taking into account that such reporting might seriously damage his private and professional reputation . Regarding the alleged entry ban , the court concluded that there had been no reliable sources and that the applicant had shown that he had recently travelled to GPE .

On DATE , ORG rejected a complaint lodged by the applicant against ORG refusal to grant leave to appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) lodged by the applicant , without providing reasons .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is a musician and a jazz critic .

On DATE the applicant published an article on his personal website about a local jazz festival and its president , Mr Y. The article contained a detailed description of the event and scathing criticism of Mr Y. Using various derivatives of Mr Y. ’s surname , the article mocked his professional qualities . The jazz festival was described as being “ a shoddy piece of work ” and PERSON delivery “ crappy ” .

Mr Y. sued the applicant in defamation , arguing that the article was insulting and harmful to his reputation .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant liable in defamation . The judgment consisted of the text of the article , a summary of the relevant domestic law , a CARDINAL - page reproduction of the extracts from the article which had been mentioned in the statement of claim and CARDINAL paragraphs of conclusions . They stated :

“ Using a distorted form of the plaintiff ’s patronymic and last name ... breaches the plaintiff ’s right to a name and to a good name , which is unacceptable under the law . Since the defendant committed a breach of the plaintiff ’s intangible assets by way of distorting his patronymic and last name in a negative way , the latter shall have the right to compensation in accordance with LAW .

[ The contested extracts ] undermine the honour and dignity of the plaintiff as a person , pedagogue and musician because they contain negative information about the plaintiff presented in an affirmative form . Pursuant to LAW , the burden to prove the truth of the allegations is on the defendant , who did not submit any evidence to the court showing that the impugned statements were true . ”

ORG awarded the plaintiff MONEY ( RUB ) in damages and directed the applicant to publish a retraction on his website .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal by the applicant . It endorsed the findings of the lower court in a summary judgment . It held that LAW had not been breached because “ the defendant published statements on the Internet which undermined the honour and dignity of the plaintiff as a person , pedagogue and musician and which contained negative information about him ” .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of inadequate conditions of detention . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He was detained in Tekirdağ F - type prison at the time of the introduction of the application with the ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti - Terrorist Branch of the GPE police headquarters on suspicion of membership of ORG , an illegal organisation .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and QUANTITY other persons with attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence prescribed by LAW .

Following the promulgation of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the case against the applicant was transferred to CARDINALth Chamber of ORG .

During the proceedings , the first - instance courts examined the applicant ’s continued detention at the end of every hearing , either on their own motion or upon the applicant ’s request .

On DATE , at the end of the hearing and in the presence of the applicant , the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG ordered the applicant ’s continued detention . The applicant objected to this decision . On DATE the CARDINALth ORG dismissed his objection without holding an oral hearing and relying on the public prosecutor ’s opinion which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .

On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment . This decision was upheld by ORG and became final on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No 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 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants appear to have been serving prison sentences in Kosh and ORG penitentiary institutions at the time of submission of their application . The third applicant lives in the town of NORP , GPE .

The first and second applicants are husband and wife . The third applicant is their daughter . At the material time they resided in NORP , in LOC of GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted on account of the murder of a local girl who was apparently the third applicant ’s classmate and whose body was found not far from the applicants’ home .

The first applicant alleges that on DATE he was taken to ORG where he was unlawfully kept without his arrest being formally recorded . At the police department he was subjected to continual beatings by police officers in an attempt to coerce him to confess to the above - mentioned murder .

On DATE the ORG found the first applicant guilty under LAW of maliciously disobeying lawful orders of police officers and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . The first applicant was found to have used foul language in the street and to have disobeyed the police officers who tried to call him to order .

The first applicant alleges that the above decision was a fake and that in reality he was kept at the police department during that entire period in connection with the above murder . The administrative penalty imposed on him was simply used as a means to legitimise his continued unlawful deprivation of liberty .

The second and third applicants allege that from DATE they were also under constant pressure from the local lawenforcement officers , being frequently taken to the police department and pressurised and coerced to confess to the murder or to incriminate each other .

On DATE the second applicant , together with a number of other residents of NORP , filed a complaint with ORG and the Chief of ORG , alleging that the first applicant had been unlawfully detained since DATE in connection with the above murder and that the applicants’ family had been terrorised by the local law - enforcement officers . They further alleged that the second applicant had been invited to ORG where she was ordered by ORG , Vi . H. , to admit that the first applicant had wanted to rape the victim and that she , having found out about it , had killed the girl out of jealousy . They alleged that the second applicant had been beaten but had refused to confess .

The second applicant alleges that on DATE she was invited to ORG where Chief of Department Vi . PERSON ordered her to testify against the first applicant . When she refused to do so , she was beaten by ORG and a number of other law - enforcement officers , including the deputy of the criminal investigation unit , GPE , CARDINAL officers of the criminal investigation unit , GPE and GPE , and the PERSON Regional Deputy Prosecutor , F.B. She was beaten on her feet with a baton and when she fainted the police officers would bring her back to consciousness and continue the beating . Thereafter the police officers brought the third applicant to the police department and locked her up in a nearby , dark room infested with rats . They threatened the second applicant that they would rape the third applicant if she refused to confess , after which she confessed to the murder . It appears that the first applicant also confessed to having assisted the second applicant in the murder .

The third applicant alleges that she was taken to the police department on numerous occasions , frequently at TIME , where she was humiliated by the police officers , threatened with rape and pressured to admit that it was the second applicant who had committed the murder and that the motive was the strained relationship between her and the victim . She further alleges that she saw both her father and her mother at the police department and that they bore signs of ill - treatment .

On DATE the first and second applicants were formally arrested in connection with the above - mentioned murder . It appears that a confrontation was held between the second and third applicants , during which the second applicant admitted having committed the murder and stated that the third applicant had helped her to dispose of the body .

On DATE applicants refused the services of a lawyer who had been invited to participate in the case by the investigator . They allege that they did so because they did not trust the investigator ’s choice . It appears that the applicants did not request that another lawyer be appointed instead .

The third applicant alleges that on TIME DATE she was kept at ORG in an individual cell which had no lights and was infested with mice .

On DATE the second applicant participated in an investigative measure at the scene of the crime which was recorded on film .

On DATE from TIME the third applicant was questioned as a witness by PERSON Deputy Prosecutor , F.B. She stated that the second applicant had made false statements during the confrontation , which must have been the result of her being drugged . She further stated that the second applicant had not committed the murder and that her behaviour , including her confession and accusations , was strange .

The third applicant alleges that following this interview she was subjected to beatings by the PERSON Regional Deputy PERSON and CARDINAL other officers of the prosecutor ’s office who pulled her hair and then threw her on the floor and started kicking her . On DATE the police officers took her home , where she lay in bed motionless for DATE until her uncle visited her on DATE and made arrangements to have her transferred to GPE for a medical examination .

On DATE the first and second applicants were formally charged with murder .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the first and second applicants’ presence , at which it examined and granted the application seeking to have them detained . Deputy Regional Prosecutor F.B. was present at this hearing . The second applicant was asked by the judge whether she had confessed voluntarily to the murder or had been coerced to do so , to which she replied that no coercion or intimidation had been applied to her during the preliminary investigation and that the confession had been made voluntarily .

On DATE the second applicant was transferred from ORG to the PERSON detention facility . Upon her admission to the detention facility the second applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to have “ bruised feet due to blood vessels being broken as a result of swelling ” . It was further recorded that she complained of high blood pressure , pain in the legs and swollen feet .

On DATE first applicant was transferred to the Kosh detention facility .

On DATE the third applicant underwent a medical examination at FAC in GPE and was found to have :

“ Concussion ( ? ) , bruising of soft tissues of the head [ ... ] , and bruising of soft tissues in the back area and of the left arm ... ”

On DATE the criminal proceedings in their part concerning the third applicant were terminated for lack of evidence of her involvement in the crime .

On DATE the first and second applicants requested that a state - appointed lawyer , PERSON , be engaged in the case . The applicants allege that on the same date lawyer PERSON requested that the first and second applicants be questioned in his presence , but this request was refused .

On DATE the investigation was completed and the first and second applicants were granted access to the case file . On the same date both applicants and their lawyer familiarised themselves with the materials of the case , which consisted of CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was transmitted to ORG for examination on the merits . In the proceedings before ORG the first and second applicants denied their guilt and stated that their confession statements had been made as a result of ill - treatment .

The first and second applicants allege that the hearings at ORG were conducted in an atmosphere of constant disorder , including real threats and verbal and physical abuse towards them and their lawyer by a group of CARDINAL people , composed of the victim ’s relatives and their friends .

In DATE lawyer PERSON Helsinki Association NGO was engaged in the case by the first and second applicants , replacing lawyer PERSON According to the applicants , the hearings continued in the same manner .

On DATE the President of the Gegharkunik Regional Court informed the head of the bar association in writing that lawyer PERSON had failed to appear at the hearing of DATE without prior notice . The hearing was therefore adjourned until DATE . Lawyer PERSON was notified of this but informed the court by telephone that she refused to participate . The President requested in his letter that measures be taken to ensure her participation or else the court would have to continue the proceedings without her .

On DATE lawyer PERSON applied to the Minister of ORG , complaining about the disorder during the court hearings . She alleged that the applicants’ previous lawyer , PERSON , had been beaten by the victim ’s relatives , which precluded his further participation in the case , and that she feared the same would happen to her . She further alleged that the court took no action to prevent the disorder and requested that the case be examined in a different court .

The first and second applicants allege that lawyer PERSON was forced to miss some of the hearings because of fears for her safety .

On DATE ORG found the first and second applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment respectively . In doing so , ORG examined and dismissed the first and second ORG allegations of ill - treatment on the following grounds :

( a ) these allegations had been examined by ORG and had been found to be unsubstantiated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;

( b ) the first and second applicants , at various stages of the proceedings , had made contradictory statements in connection with these allegations ;

( c ) the second applicant , having indicated the alleged perpetrators , nevertheless refused to have a confrontation with them during the court proceedings ;

( d ) on DATE the second applicant had participated in an investigative measure at the scene of the crime which was recorded on film and was examined in court : she walked freely and bore no signs of illtreatment ;

( e ) the first and second applicants admitted their guilt and made no allegations of ill - treatment at the court hearing of CARDINAL DATE , at which the question of their detention was determined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;

( f ) on DATE the first and second applicants were filmed for a police television show but made no allegations of ill - treatment to the members of the crew ;

( g ) when questioned on DATE the second applicant refused to comment on the complaints which she had lodged with various authorities prior to her arrest , stating that those had been lodged before her arrest and that the true statements were those which she had made after her arrest ;

( h ) on DATE the first and second applicants were transferred to detention facilities and no signs of ill - treatment were recorded at the time of their admission ;

( i ) the second applicant raised the allegations of ill - treatment for the first time only on DATE , DATE after her arrest ;

( j ) the second applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment had been rebutted by the statements made in court by the officer of the criminal investigation unit of ORG , PERSON , who had been questioned as a witness .

On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal . In her appeal she argued that the applicants had been deprived of effective legal assistance because from DATE she had not been able to participate in the hearings because of the constant disorder in the courtroom . She further argued that the ORG conviction had been based on coerced confession statements . It appears that the applicants also lodged appeals in which they , inter alia , denied their guilt and stated that their confession statements had been made as a result of ill - treatment .

On DATE the examination of the case commenced at the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal . According to the first and second applicants , the hearings before ORG were conducted in the same manner as before ORG .

At the hearing on DATE a scuffle broke out between the victim ’s and the applicants’ relatives . It appears that the victim ’s relatives were removed from the courtroom and the hearing resumed . The hearing was then adjourned until DATE in order for lawyer PERSON to have time to prepare her final pleading .

On DATE the head of ORG submitted the text of lawyer PERSON final pleading to ORG by post , claiming that this was necessary in order to ensure the lawyer ’s personal and physical safety . He alleged that at the hearing of DATE the victim ’s relatives had attacked the lawyer . Some of the defendants’ relatives had also been attacked and beaten . He further alleged that during the hearings in both ORG and ORG there had been constant threats against the lawyer , but her requests to have her security ensured and the threats recorded in the transcripts had been ignored by the courts .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE because of lawyer PERSON ’s absence . In doing so , ORG noted the lawyer ’s concerns about her security and refusal to participate because of fears for her safety .

On DATE the presiding judge addressed a letter to the head of the bar association , with a copy to lawyer PERSON , stating that the hearing had been adjourned and asking that her future appearance be ensured . The letter further stated that appropriate measures had been taken to ensure the safety of the participants in the trial .

On DATE lawyer PERSON complained to the police about the events of DATE , alleging that she had been working in such conditions for DATE and that she was not able to attend the hearing of DATE because of fears for her safety .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . Lawyer S. did not appear . According to the record of the hearing , the court noted lawyer PERSON ’s absence and stated that both the lawyer and the bar association had been informed that the court had taken all possible measures to secure the safety of those participating in the trial and had therefore been asked to ensure the lawyer ’s presence . The second applicant stated that she had met with lawyer PERSON at the detention centre and they had agreed that the lawyer would not appear in court . She therefore wished to dispense with the lawyer ’s services and did not wish to have another lawyer . The first applicant similarly stated that he wished the proceedings to continue without the lawyer and that he did not wish to have another lawyer . The court then decided to return lawyer PERSON ’s final pleading on the ground that she no longer represented the first and second applicants .

The applicants allege that the record of the court hearing of DATE contains inaccurate statements and does not correspond to reality . Their lawyer was refused , at a later stage , a copy of this record because she was allegedly no longer authorised to represent them and was therefore unable to comment on its accuracy .

On DATE ORG upheld the first and second applicants’ conviction . ORG dismissed their allegations of ill - treatment on the same grounds as ORG adding also that , according to a court - ordered expert medical opinion , the first applicant bore no signs of injury .

On DATE lawyer PERSON visited the second applicant at the detention facility .

On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . In her appeal she argued that the applicants had been ill - treated and their conviction was based on coerced statements . She further argued that the applicants had been deprived of effective legal assistance and an objective examination of their case , because of an atmosphere of constant terror reigning in the courtroom . ORG had failed to ensure order and it had been impossible to examine evidence and to submit new evidence in an objective and fair manner because of the repeated scuffles and stressful atmosphere . The conflicts , threats of violence , verbal abuse and scuffles had worsened during the last CARDINAL hearings in ORG . The court , however , had failed to take any measures , which precluded her further participation and even made it impossible to make her final pleading which , as a result , she had been forced to submit by post . The court ’s inactivity only encouraged further aggressive behaviour by the victim ’s relatives . The ORG previous lawyer PERSON had also been unable to participate in the hearings , which had consequently been held in DATE in his absence .

On an unspecified date the second applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law . It appears that in her appeal she argued that she had confessed to the crime as a result of beatings , torture and threats . She further complained that the hearings before ORG had been held without a lawyer .

DATE . On DATE lawyer PERSON received a letter from the presiding judge dated DATE informing her that the first and second applicants had dispensed with her services because of her failure to appear at the hearings of DATE and DATE and returning the text of her final pleading .

On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged a supplement to her appeal of CARDINAL DATE , expressing surprise about the fact that the text of her final pleading had been returned to her and about the grounds on which it had been returned . She alleged that these actions pursued the aim of concealing the violation of the first and second applicants’ right to defence and the failure to ensure order during the court hearings . She requested that the text of her final pleading be included in the case file . She further requested that protective measures be taken at the hearing before ORG in order for her to be able to participate , taking into account the manner in which the hearings had been conducted before the courts of first and second instance .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s appeal . As regards the allegations of ill - treatment , ORG stated that these had been thoroughly examined by ORG and ORG and had been rightly found to be unsubstantiated . As regards the alleged absence of a lawyer , the court considered these allegations to be ill - founded , finding on the basis of the materials of the case file that the lawyer had been involved in the examination of the case at ORG from DATE , namely DATE . As it appeared from the record of the hearing of DATE , the second applicant later dispensed with the lawyer ’s services because of the latter ’s failure to appear at the hearings of DATE and DATE . Taking this into account , as well as the fact that the second applicant did not wish to have another lawyer , ORG accepted this and informed the lawyer in a letter .

As to lawyer PERSON ’s appeal , ORG left this appeal unexamined on the ground that the first and second applicants had dispensed with her services and she was no longer authorised to bring an appeal on their behalf pursuant to LAW ) of LAW .

On DATE the third applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . She stated , inter alia , that on DATE she had been roughly pushed into a car and taken by LOC . H. and another law enforcement official to Chief PERSON . PERSON ’s office . There GPE . H. had started to force her to smoke a cigarette , while continually hitting her on the head with his hand and a bottle , saying that it was she who had committed the murder . When she disagreed , they had proceeded to beat her . At that moment Deputy Regional Prosecutor F.B. had entered the office and slapped her with such force that her teeth hurt . CARDINAL of the officers said “ PERSON down , bitch ” and pushed her to the floor , then ORG , GPE . H. and Investigator PERSON started kicking her like a ball . GPE . H. ordered her to undress , saying that he had invited a doctor to check if she was still a virgin . When she refused , he pulled off her jacket . They wanted to undress her but she resisted . Then they brought in her mother and beat her , after which they told her to watch how they would murder her daughter , unless they agreed to confess . Then they let her go but only on the condition that she would not tell anyone that she had been beaten . TIME she was again taken to the police department , where ORG started hitting her arms and forcing her to write a confession . Then they brought her mother again and made them sit facing each other . They started beating her mother and ordered her to persuade her daughter to confess . Her mother begged her to do so , adding that she would not recognise her father if she saw him , he was in such a bad state , and that it was not shameful to lie after all the ill - treatment they had endured . She decided to cooperate eventually because of her mother ’s pleas .

On DATE the second applicant lodged a similar complaint with ORG . She stated , inter alia , that on DATE she had been taken into custody at ORG by the Chief of Department Vi . H. and Regional Prosecutor F.B. There she had been beaten by PERSON . H. and CARDINAL other police officers in connection with the murder . Her husband had been kept at the police department for DATE , where he had been beaten and his fingernails had been pulled in order to coerce him to confess , which he had refused to do . The same beating and violence had been inflicted on her and her daughter . For DATE Chief of ORG . H. had beaten her and made her sit in water , after which she had agreed to write the confession dictated to her by NORP Investigator PERSON and Regional Prosecutor F.B. The second applicant added that she was prepared to repeat her allegations in court in the presence of the perpetrators .

On DATE the ORG forwarded the third applicant ’s complaint to ORG , together with a copy of the medical opinion of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The above complaints were forwarded by ORG to ORG for examination .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the Senior Assistant to ORG , Y.I. ( hereby Senior Assistant PERSON ) , took statements from the following law enforcement officers in connection with the allegations of ill - treatment : PERSON Regional Deputy Prosecutor PERSON , Assistant to ORG H. , Investigator of ORG G.H. , Chief of ORG H. , Head of ORG at the NORP Police Department S.M. , CARDINAL officers of that unit GPE and GPE , and chief of the temporary detention cell at the police department , V.A. They were asked to provide an account of the contested events . In reply to PERSON ’s request to comment on the second and third applicants’ allegations of illtreatment addressed to some of those questioned , they denied having inflicted any violence on the second and third applicants , claiming that the latter had made false statements .

On DATE Senior Assistant PERSON took a statement from the second applicant . She stated that on DATE she had been taken by PERSON . PERSON to the police department where she had been kept for DATE and beaten by Vi . H. and police officers PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE with rubber batons . She had been threatened with a champagne bottle and had been seated on what she believed to be an electric chair . They had demanded that she confess to the murder , otherwise the same would happen to her daughter , husband and other family members . She had then written a confession which was dictated to her . Furthermore , she had met her husband DATE who had already been in police custody for DATE at a confrontation . His fingernails had been pulled , he had lost weight , and his clothes were stained and torn . When she had asked him what had happened , he had started crying and said that for DATE he had been deprived of sleep and repeatedly beaten . In the meantime her daughter was being beaten in a nearby office . She had not mentioned any of this to the judge at the detention hearing because she had been beaten and for fear that the illtreatment would continue .

On DATE the chief of ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit DATE apparently upon the inquiry of ORG – issued a certificate containing the results of the second applicant ’s medical examination of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE Senior Assistant PERSON decided to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings on the basis of the second and third applicants’ complaints . This decision stated that :

“ [ The second and third applicants’ complaints of DATE and CARDINAL DATE addressed to the ORG and ORG ] have been transferred by ORG to ORG for examination ...

ORG has examined the above complaints , has verified in detail the presented facts , and has taken statements from the employees of ORG and Vardenis Police Department mentioned in those complaints and involved in the criminal case .

The allegations raised in [ the second and third applicants’ complaints ] concerning having been beaten or subjected to any other kind of violence have been rebutted .

The circumstances have been confirmed by the statements of Regional Deputy Prosecutor [ F.B. ] , Assistant Prosecutor [ Va . H. ] , Investigator of ORG [ G.H. ] , Chief of ORG [ Vi . H. ] , Head of ORG at the said department [ PERSON ] , CARDINAL operatives of the said unit , [ GPE and GPE ] , and chief of the [ temporary detention cell at the police department V.A. ] ; the certificate of CARDINAL DATE of the NORP detention facility , according to which [ the second applicant ] on the date of her admission at [ the Abovyan detention facility ] ( DATE ) was examined by a doctor and complained of high blood pressure , pain in her legs and swollen feet . The bruises on [ the second applicant ’s feet ] resulted from swellings which were caused by broken blood vessels .

[ The first applicant ] has not submitted any complaints concerning having been beaten or subjected to any other kind of violence . ”

The applicants were not informed about this decision .

On DATE the chief of the ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit addressed a letter to lawyer PERSON , stating that during the medical examination carried out at the time of the second applicant ’s admission to the detention facility , namely on DATE , the second applicant had complained of pain in the legs and swollen feet . The second applicant had been found to have swollen and bruised feet .

On DATE lawyer PERSON applied to ORG with a request to have criminal proceedings instituted . The lawyer alleged that all CARDINAL applicants had been ill - treated and coerced to confess at ORG in DATE and DATE . She stated that the perpetrators had been pointed out by the applicants . The lawyer referred to the results of the medical examinations carried out in respect of the second applicant at the Abovyan detention facility on DATE and in respect of the third applicant at FAC on DATE .

It appears that on DATE ORG sent a letter to lawyer PERSON , informing her that the first and second applicants had not been ill - treated by the employees of ORG and ORG .

On DATE lawyer PERSON to ORG with the same request , claiming that no reply had been received to her previous request of DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to lawyer PERSON with identical content .

On an unspecified date lawyer PERSON contested the actions of ORG , including the CARDINAL above - mentioned letters , before the courts on behalf of all CARDINAL applicants . The lawyer complained about the ill - treatment that had been inflicted on the applicants in the period between CARDINAL and DATE , and indicated the names of the perpetrators , including the Chief of ORG , Vi . H. and the police officers of that department , GPE , GPE and V.A. She alleged that ORG and the investigative team headed by him were aware of these acts but showed indifference and even facilitated the coercion to obtain prosecution evidence .

DATE . On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE left the lawyer ’s appeal without examination . ORG found that a decision had been adopted on DATE whereby the institution of criminal proceedings had been refused . According to the prescribed procedure , this decision could be contested before a higher prosecutor or the court of appeal .

On DATE the third applicant lodged an appeal against this decision . She alleged , inter alia , that she and the other CARDINAL applicants had been subjected to continual ill - treatment in DATE and DATE . She herself had been kept at ORG on TIME CARDINAL DATE and beaten by the employees of ORG , ORG , GPE . H. , GPE and G.H. ORG , TIME , and Chief of ORG . H. had been aware of this . She had injuries on her head , face and back and had to stay in bed for DATE . Only after her uncle came to visit her upon his return from GPE could she be transferred to GPE for a medical examination . The third applicant further stated that she had noticed signs of ill - treatment on her mother , such as bruised hands , swollen face and difficulty walking , during the confrontation which had been held between them .

On the same date lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal with the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on behalf of the first and second applicants . In her appeal she argued , inter alia , that neither she nor the applicants had ever been informed about this decision and they had become aware of it only at the hearing before ORG on DATE . As regards the substance of this decision , it was adopted by persons who had an interest in the outcome of the case and was based on statements of the alleged perpetrators which lacked credibility . The applicants , however , had never been questioned in connection with their allegations . The lawyer further referred to the numerous complaints lodged by the second and third applicants from DATE and the results of their medical examinations of CARDINAL and DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal examined jointly both issues and decided to dismiss the appeal against the decision of DATE and not to examine the appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that it had been lodged outside DATE time - limit for appeal .

On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal against this decision on behalf of the applicants .

On DATE ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case for a new examination on the ground that ORG had failed to clarify whether the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been duly and timely served on the applicants .

On DATE ORG decided to quash the decision of DATE and to reserve a right to the defence to contest the decision of CARDINAL DATE , since there was no evidence to show that a copy of that decision had been duly served on the applicants prior to their becoming aware of it in DATE .

On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on behalf of the applicants .

DATE . On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the appeal . In doing so , the court first confirmed the findings made in that decision and then added that the complaints about ill - treatment had already been examined and dismissed by ORG and ORG in the course of the criminal proceedings against the first and second applicants .

For a summary of the relevant provisions see the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

DATE . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the suspect and the accused have the right to defence counsel and to be questioned in his presence . The suspect enjoys this right from the moment when he is presented with the investigating authority ’s decision on arrest , the record of arrest or the decision on choosing a preventive measure , while the accused enjoys it from the moment when the charge is brought .

According to LAW , defence counsel ’s participation in the criminal proceedings is compulsory if , inter alia , the suspect or the accused has expressed such a wish . Defence counsel ’s compulsory participation in the criminal proceedings is to be secured by the authority dealing with the criminal case .

Section CARDINAL provides that refusal of a lawyer by the suspect or the accused means his intention is to conduct his defence without the assistance of a lawyer . The suspect ’s or the accused ’s statement refusing a lawyer is to be entered into a record .

Sections CARDINAL provides that if the authority dealing with the case discovers that , inter alia , the accused or the defence lawyer is in need of protection from any criminal encroachment , it shall take protective measures upon the victim ’s request or of its own motion by adopting an appropriate decision . Such measures are compulsory if the victim or his next of kin has received physical threats or threats against his property or if physical violence has been inflicted in connection with his participation in the trial . The victim ’s request for protective measures shall be examined by the authority dealing with the case immediately and at the latest within TIME . The victim shall be immediately informed about the decision and served a copy .

According to LAW , protective measures include , inter alia , a warning by the court or the prosecutor of possible criminal prosecution of the person who has made violent or other criminal threats , and measures ensuring the safety of the victim . The person to whom a warning is to be issued shall be summoned by the prosecutor , the investigator or the body of inquiry . Measures ensuring the safety of the victim include , inter alia , taking the victim or his next of kin under personal protection .

According to Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , an appeal against a judgment of ORG can be lodged by the convicted , the acquitted , their lawyers and lawful representatives , the prosecutor , the victim and his representative .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 3+13 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Article 13 - Effective remedy;Right to an effective remedy) (Conditional) (Turkey);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

While studying in GPE ( DATE ) the applicant had become a pro - communist and NORP political activist . In DATE he opened a literary café , which was frequented by individuals favourable to such a political stance . In DATE the NORP police arrested the applicant , and he was prosecuted for infringing ORG constitutional order ( LAW ) . The applicant was also held in the “ white ( isolation ) cells ” in FAC . He went on hunger strike for DATE , causing him to develop Wernicke - Korsakoff syndrome , a pathology which can cause irreversible damage to health and prove fatal . Given the threat to the applicant ’s life , the NORP authorities decided to release him .

In DATE the applicant fled to GPE , where he submitted an asylum application on DATE . On DATE the General Secretary of ORG , adjudicating at first instance , rejected that application , giving summary reasons .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against that decision . On DATE , having been summoned to attend ORG , he presented the latter with a number of documents showing that he had suffered torture in GPE on account of his political opinions , including a medical report drawn up by ORG and an ORG document . On DATE ORG on Asylum issued a favourable opinion in respect of the applicant .

Further to that favourable opinion , under LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( on the procedure for the examination of asylum applications ) , the Minister for Public Order should have taken a decision within TIME on whether or not to grant the applicant international protection . However , by the date on which the application was referred to the ORG , the Minister had not taken any decision and therefore had neither ratified nor rejected the ORG ’s opinion .

DATE the applicant lived in GPE and attended the police station DATE in order to renew his asylum - seeker ’s card . Under domestic law that card did not constitute a residence permit and therefore did not secure all the attendant rights : it only allowed the asylum - seeker not to be expelled and to reside in the national territory with “ tolerated status ” while his application was being examined . More specifically , under domestic law the asylum - seeker was not entitled to engage in an occupation , undertake vocational training , marry , obtain a driving licence , hold a bank account or apply for family reunion .

In DATE , while he was living in GPE , the applicant was joined by his wife from GPE . However , her presence in GPE only became lawful in DATE , when she obtained a short - term work permit . In DATE the couple had a son . In DATE the applicant ’s wife returned to GPE with the child owing to health problems . The couple divorced in DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG had issued an extradition request in respect of the applicant . That request had been based on accusations similar to those used in DATE which had been assessed by the NORP authorities during the examination of his asylum application .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . On DATE the indictment division of ORG examined the extradition request and unanimously decided to reject it . The division based its decision on the risk run by the applicant of suffering ill - treatment on account of his political opinions , should he be extradited . It further noted that the nature of the offences for which extradition had been requested had only been described vaguely and abstractly in the request submitted by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the public prosecutor appealed to ORG against the decision of the indictment division of ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the impugned decision .

ORG The applicant had meanwhile been actively seeking to secure a final decision . He had written to ORG and DATE , and to the Minister for Public Order on DATE , DATE and DATE .

Furthermore , it emerged from correspondence among a number of different authorities ( between police authorities and between the police and other authorities ) on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , that the applicant ’s asylum application was still pending before the Minister for Public Order .


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

In a trespass dispute , on DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG .

After a second - instance decision by ORG and a remittal , the final judgment in the case was adopted by ORG and served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

NORP In DATE ORG in GPE instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud . The applicant had been working as a police officer and was suspected of having obtained by fraud a number of sick leave certificates justifying his absence from work .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE .

On DATE he was placed on the list of wanted persons by ORG of the Interior .

On DATE ORG of PERSON ordered the applicant ’s arrest . On DATE an international arrest warrant was issued .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police with a view to his extradition .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa ( “ the ORG ” ) , following an application from the prosecution authorities , remanded the applicant in custody for DATE pending the extradition procedure .

On DATE or DATE ( both dates are mentioned in different case - file materials ) ORG of Ukraine ( “ the GPOU ” ) received a request from its NORP counterpart about the applicant ’s extradition and the extension of his detention pending extradition . As noted in that request , there were criminal proceedings against the applicant pending in GPE on suspicion of fraud . The extradition request did not contain any further details in that regard , but mentioned that “ a detailed description of the charges against [ the applicant was ] in the enclosed documents ” . It is not known what enclosures were attached to the request in question .

It appears from the judicial ruling of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that on CARDINAL DATE the ORG received another request from the NORP prosecution authorities about the applicant ’s detention and extradition . There is no mention of that request in any other documents in the case file .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG for an extension of the applicant ’s detention “ pending resolution of the issue of his extradition ” .

On DATE ORG allowed that application .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He complained that he had not been familiarised with the charges against him , that no time - limit for his detention had been set , and that ORG had announced the contested decision following a hearing at which he had not been present .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal examined the applicant ’s appeal in a hearing at which CARDINAL prosecutors were present , but in the absence of the applicant . The prosecutors submitted that the applicant ’s extradition to GPE was all but settled and would take place shortly thereafter . Having regard to those arguments and noting that an international arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant , the appellate court upheld the lower court ’s decision extending his detention pending extradition .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG of Odessa ( “ the ORG ” ) for an extension of the applicant ’s “ extradition detention ” pursuant to the legislative amendments to LAW in force since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG allowed the above application and ordered that the applicant ’s extradition detention be extended “ pending resolution of the question of his extradition and the actual transfer ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above ruling . He submitted that the time - limits for his detention remained unspecified , that he was still unaware of the charges against him , that his detention had been unreasonably long and that the court had not taken into account the fact that he had CARDINAL young children .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal allowed his appeal in part . It quashed the aforementioned ruling on the grounds that the respective provision of LAW did not provide for any extension of extradition detention . The case was remitted to the first - instance court for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s request for a lawyer to be appointed for him . As a result , the hearing was adjourned till DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged a new application with the court for the applicant ’s extradition detention pursuant to the amendments to LAW . This time it concerned the imposition of such detention , rather than its extension .

On DATE ORG , following a hearing in the presence of the lawyer appointed for the applicant , allowed the prosecutor ’s application . The ruling mentioned that the NORP prosecution authorities had lodged a request for the applicant ’s extradition on CARDINAL DATE , without any reference to the similar request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The court relied on the aforementioned ORG amendments effective since DATE and stated that the extradition inquiry case - file materials complied with the applicable legislation . Lastly , the court noted that it had not established any impediments to the applicant ’s extradition to GPE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his detention was unlawful and asked to be released . The case file does not contain a copy of this complaint .

On DATE ORG of GPE sent an updated extradition request in respect of the applicant , of which there is no copy on the case file . It appears that , in addition to the initial fraud charge , CARDINAL other counts of fraud were imputed to the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG decided to extradite the applicant to GPE in connection with CARDINAL episodes of fraud but rejected the extradition request in respect of CARDINAL such episode . That decision was explained by the fact that NORP criminal law normally does not prescribe imprisonment as a penalty for fraud . However , where fraud has been committed repeatedly , it can be punished by imprisonment . In the applicant ’s case there were CARDINAL “ repeated fraud ” episodes . The ORG decision referred to CARDINAL extradition requests relating to the applicant : CARDINAL of DATE regarding CARDINAL episode of fraud and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE regarding CARDINAL further episodes ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his detention was unlawful and had been unreasonably long . He argued that the NORP authorities had not been diligent in dealing with the extradition requests in his respect , in contravention of LAW ( f ) of the LAW . The applicant further referred to LAW and submitted that his earlier complaint , of QUANTITY DATE , had never been examined .

On DATE the applicant lodged another complaint with ORG concerning the alleged unlawfulness of his detention and asked to be released .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG for an extension of the applicant ’s extradition detention . It referred to the aforementioned decision of DATE and noted that the issue of the applicant ’s actual transfer back to GPE was being decided .

On DATE the court granted that application in a hearing attended by the applicant . It noted that the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been challenged and had come into force . Furthermore , pursuant to the respective prosecutor ’s instructions , the applicant was to be transferred to GPE by DATE . As reported in TIME of the hearing , the judge read out the applicant ’s complaints of QUANTITY DATE and of DATE , and the applicant reaffirmed them . The court ruling did not , however , mention those complaints .

On DATE the applicant challenged the above ruling on appeal . He noted that , while the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for extradition detention of DATE , it did not establish any time - limits for submitting and examining the associated extradition request . Accordingly , the applicant argued that the NORP authorities should abide by the DATE Minsk Convention , which provided for a DATE time - limit for submitting an extradition request once the person was detained and a maximum DATE extension of that time - limit for supplementing the extradition request if need be ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He emphasised that in his case a duly completed extradition request had not been submitted until DATE , whereas he had been in detention since DATE . The applicant therefore argued that he should be released immediately . Lastly , he submitted that the charges against him were ridiculous and that it was in his own interests to go to GPE so that his trial could be completed without delay .

On DATE the appellate court , while allowing the applicant ’s appeal in part , modified the first - instance court ’s ruling as follows : instead of the extension of the applicant ’s extradition detention , which was not provided for in the legislation , his continued detention was found to be lawful , since its maximum time - limit of DATE had not been exceeded and there were no grounds for the applicant ’s release .

On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE .


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

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , who are brothers , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Ms F. Sağlam , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The first applicant , PERSON , joined the army on DATE to perform his compulsory military service in GPE . According to the information in the case file , the medical examination conducted prior to his conscription found no medical conditions precluding his admission to military service .

On DATE , while he was still performing his military service , the first applicant was taken to ORG complaining of coughing , bloody phlegm and weight loss . Following certain medical tests , he was diagnosed with a mild infection and was prescribed a course of antibiotics and cough medicine . He was also given DATE of bed rest and was asked to attend a check - up at the end of that period .

When his condition deteriorated on DATE , the first applicant was hospitalised at FAC , where he was diagnosed with meningeal tuberculosis . He received inpatient treatment at the hospital until DATE . Following his discharge from hospital , he had physiotherapy at ORG in GPE and was subsequently given sick leave .

DATE the first applicant was readmitted to PERSON ORG for follow - up treatment .

NORP The neurological report issued by PERSON ORG on DATE found that the first applicant was exhibiting articulation problems resulting from dysarthria , and that he was suffering from dystonia . According to that report , he had also lost the ability to walk .

On DATE ORG of PERSON ORG declared the first applicant unfit to continue his military service , owing to his major loss of speech and body function ( PERCENT ) as a result of meningeal tuberculosis .

On DATE the second applicant , acting on behalf of his brother as his guardian , brought compensation proceedings against ORG before ORG , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary compensation for the damage his brother had suffered as a result of the disease he had contracted during his military service .

On DATE ORG appointed a panel of CARDINAL neurology experts to determine : the cause of the first applicant ’s disease ; whether it might have been caused by performance of his military service ; and whether there had been any delay or other shortcoming in the medical treatment offered to him .

In their report dated DATE the experts confirmed that the first applicant had been declared unfit for military service not because of a pre - existing medical condition , but as a result of meningeal tuberculosis . They further noted that there was no evidence that he had been infected with tuberculosis bacteria prior to his conscription . They also found , however , that since he had not performed his military service in an area where tuberculosis was prevalent , it could not be said that his disease was “ service - related ” . As for the quality of the treatment offered to the first applicant , the experts stated that they did not have enough information on the tests he had undergone and the initial treatment he had received at ORG , which prevented them from commenting on the adequacy of the medical assistance provided there . The detailed medical records pertaining to the treatment subsequently offered at ORG suggested , however , that he had received comprehensive assistance at that hospital , and that there was no evidence of negligence or other shortcomings in his medical care .

Upon receiving the relevant medical files from ORG , on DATE the experts issued an additional report regarding the quality of the treatment provided at ORG . According to the experts , the results of the initial medical tests carried out at that hospital had not pointed to tuberculosis , as the disease had been in its early stages at the time . There was therefore no evidence to suggest an unjustified delay in the diagnosis and treatment of the first applicant ’s tuberculosis at ORG .

On DATE , on behalf of his brother , the second applicant responded to the findings of the expert reports submitted to ORG . The second applicant stated at the outset that , despite the expert report ’s focus on the quality of the medical treatment offered to his brother , he and his brother had no claims regarding the treatment provided following the diagnosis . The basis of the compensation proceedings they had brought before ORG was rather that the first applicant , who had been healthy at the time of his admission to military service , had contracted the disease while under the control and protection of the ORG , a fact which was also supported by the findings of the experts .

On DATE ORG requested information from ORG as to whether any other soldiers who had performed their military service with the first applicant had been diagnosed with meningeal tuberculosis . On DATE the commander in charge of the brigade informed the court that no other cases of meningeal tuberculosis had been registered at the material time .

By a judgment dated DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s claims . Relying mainly on the expert reports in the case file , the administrative court held that there was no evidence to prove a causal link between the first applicant ’s illness and the military service . It further found that he had been provided with the necessary medical assistance without delay or fault , which exonerated the administration from any liability in respect of the first applicant .

On DATE the second applicant objected to ORG judgment , arguing that the court should have upheld the claim for damages on the basis of the principle of strict liability ( kusursuz sorumluluk ) , bearing in mind that the first applicant had been diagnosed with meningeal tuberculosis while under the control and protection of the ORG . The second applicant did not contest the court ’s finding as to the quality of the treatment offered to his brother .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s objection .

On DATE the first applicant lodged claims for disability benefits with ORG , the pension fund of the armed forces , and the Retired Civil Servants’ Fund ( ORG ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG and the Retired ORG rejected the first applicant ’s claims , holding that he did not qualify for such benefits under the relevant legislation .

In the meantime , on DATE the first applicant had applied to ORG for some financial assistance . The fund had been set up to , inter alia , provide support for wounded and disabled soldiers . According to the information in the case file , ORG did not respond to the first applicant ’s application .

At the material time , the relevant provisions of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE – Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri Sağlık Yeteneği NORP ) provided :

Section CARDINAL

“ The initial medical examination of [ persons to be conscripted ] shall be carried out at the time of their final draft ... by CARDINAL physicians ( one may be a civilian ) in the following manner :

CARDINAL ) Their psychological and physical condition and internal organs are reviewed carefully , their heart rates and blood pressures are checked ... The size of their chest cavities during inhalation and exhalation , and any illnesses or disorders , are recorded .

CARDINAL ) NORP Those whose [ medical condition ] remains inconclusive after the medical examination , and those who require observation , are referred to the nearest military hospital . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ The medical examination of those whose illnesses and disorders went undetected during the initial medical examination , and those who fell ill after their initial medical examination but before their draft ... shall be carried out at military hospitals or in units or institutions that have CARDINAL physicians . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ... Military physicians who are in charge of the final draft shall inform the nearest government physician of any contagious diseases they may encounter . ”

In accordance with the same regulation , in the event of an illness or disability being discovered during the medical examinations , necessary measures were taken to arrange for the postponement of military service or for sick leave . The illnesses and disabilities in question were set out in a list annexed to the regulation ( Hastalık ve PERSON ) , which included various types of tuberculosis .

In accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG Law no . CARDINAL of DATE – ORG ) , in force at the material time , the physical and psychological condition of soldiers had to be surveyed and protected by the unit commanders and military physicians . Moreover , in accordance with LAW of the same PERSON , privates and non - commissioned officers were to undergo general medical examinations at the time of their admission to and discharge from the military . These examinations were to be repeated in DATE , and then DATE for the remainder of service . The commanders would monitor and check the general medical condition of the soldiers according to the results of these examinations .

Further details regarding the general system for protecting the physical and psychological integrity of conscripts may be found in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former head of the civil law department in ORG .

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

On DATE baby PERSON was born . DATE her mother , PERSON , sued the applicant to establish his paternity and to receive alimony . A genetic study confirmed the applicant ’s paternity in respect of ORG ; however , a medical study concluded that the pregnancy “ could not have occurred naturally ” .

On DATE ORG in Cheboksary held a hearing with the participation of the applicant and PERSON and rejected her claim . On DATE ORG of the Chuvashiya Republic quashed ORG judgment and remitted the matter for a new examination .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment in favour of H. It was quashed on appeal by ORG on DATE in particular on the ground that the parties had not been informed of the date and place of the hearing in which genetics experts had been cross - examined .

In DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large - scale bribery . He was detained in remand prison GPE in GPE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter of request ( судебное поручение ) to the director of the remand prison , asking him to clarify the applicant ’s position on the merits of the dispute and to ascertain whether he agreed to having the matter examined in his absence or wished to appoint a representative . On DATE the director interviewed the applicant who declared his wish to take part in the proceedings and to defend himself in person . The applicant also claimed that he possessed new evidence he wished to submit to the court . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to be present at the hearings on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure made no provision for bringing detainees to courts .

On DATE ORG held the hearing in the presence of PERSON , as well as PERSON and PERSON who represented the applicant . The judgment of the same date was given in PERSON favour . It mentioned that the applicant was held in a remand prison , that he did not recognise the paternity and that he had “ previously given similar testimony before the court ” .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It held that the applicant ’s absence from the hearing did not entail a violation of his rights because he had been represented and had previously given testimony to the court .

On DATE the applicant was released on bail .

On DATE the ORG decided that he had breached the terms of the bail by exercising pressure on witnesses , issued a detention order and put the applicant ’s name on the list of fugitives from justice . The applicant was not present at the hearing and could not be immediately re - arrested .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL police officers showed up at the entrance of the applicant ’s residence . They had been allegedly tipped off that the applicant was there . As it happened , the applicant received in - patient treatment at the infections centre but his daughter was inside .

She did not open the door to the police immediately and told them that her father was in a hospital . According to her , the police began banging at the door and threatened her to break in . She was thus compelled to open the door . The police entered the flat , inspected all the rooms , opened closets and boxes , lifted the sofa and bed , and then left .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody .

On DATE ORG found that the detention order of DATE was not justified . In its view , ORG had wrongly attached decisive weight to the statements by witnesses who had not mentioned any actual threats emanating from the applicant . ORG quashed the detention order and released the applicant .

The applicant complained to a prosecutor about the unlawful actions of the police on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding that no criminal offence had been committed .

NORP The applicant then sued ORG for compensation in respect of an unauthorised search of his home carried out by the police . ORG heard a number of witnesses . The applicant ’s daughter insisted that the police ORG presence in the flat had lasted TIME as TIME . The officer PERSON testified that he had entered the flat with the consent of the applicant ’s daughter and that he had stayed inside no longer than TIME . He had not searched the flat or opened closets . S. , a relative who was present at the scene , stated that the police had entered the flat with the daughter ’s consent , that they had “ moved beds , looked under the carpets , displaced closets and paintings , gone into the basement ” .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . Citing LAW of LAW and section CARDINAL of FAC , ORG held that the officers had acted lawfully , on the basis of the detention order of DATE , and that they had the right to enter the applicant ’s flat because they had information that he might have been at home . Since the NORP law only established the right to compensation in case of unlawful actions , the applicant ’s claim was dismissed .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment on appeal .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of forcing students to pay bribes into the account of his law firm in exchange of passing grades and gave him a custodial sentence . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .

The applicant sued ORG for compensation in connection of his unlawful detention from DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected his claim , noting that the applicant had been ultimately convicted in the criminal proceedings and given a custodial sentence and that ORG had quashed the detention order as being “ unjustified ” rather than “ unlawful ” . In the latter case , no compensation was payable .


The applicants are Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) , ORG ( “ the second applicant ” ) and ORG ( “ the third applicant ” ) .

The first applicant is a medical doctor and a NORP national who was born in DATE , and is presently serving a prison sentence in the ORG . The second and third applicants are limited liability companies based in GPE . They were both co - owned by the first applicant .

The applicants are represented before the ORG by Mr M. Zindović , Mr Ž. Lazović , PERSON and PERSON , all lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( the Government ” ) were initially represented by their former Agent , Mr PERSON , and subsequently by their current Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the first applicant was arrested on charges primarily related to the production and trafficking of narcotics ( amphetamines ) .

On DATE the first applicant and numerous others were indicted by ORG for various drugs - related felonies alleged to have been committed in an organised crime context . The first applicant was described as being the head of this criminal enterprise .

The second and third applicants were never indicted , as the domestic legislation at that time did not provide for the possibility to bring criminal charges against legal entities . They were , however , mentioned as vehicles used by the first applicant and others to carry out their criminal endeavours , as well as companies in which criminal proceeds had been invested .

On DATE , the GPE ORG : ( a ) found the first applicant guilty and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for the narcotics - related charges , as well as the charge of tax evasion ; ( b ) ordered the confiscation of all substances containing amphetamine found in the first applicant ’s possession ; ( c ) ordered the confiscation of the CARDINAL United Sates Dollars ( “ NORP ” ) and CARDINAL ( “ EUR ” ) found in the first applicant ’s flat ; ( d ) ordered the confiscation of the MONEY ( “ CHF ” ) deposited in the first applicant ’s bank account in GPE ; ( e ) ordered the first applicant to pay , for the restitution of the “ remainder of his criminally gained assets ” , the sum of USD MONEY ; and ( f ) ordered the confiscation of a building owned by the second applicant , as well as the confiscation of all of the second and third applicants’ production facilities , laboratory equipment and chemical substances found on their LOC .

On DATE ORG upheld the first applicant ’s conviction as regards the narcotics - related charges , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ORG further quashed the first applicant ’s conviction regarding tax evasion , and excluded the second applicant ’s building from the confiscation ordered at first instance , noting that following the removal of the confiscated production facilities and illegal substances the building itself posed no danger to the public .

The applicants did not receive ORG decision DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicants filed an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude ) .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a differently composed panel compared to the one which had considered the applicants’ case on appeal , rejected the first applicant ’s appeal on points of law as unfounded . As regards the second and third applicants’ pleadings , they were rejected as inadmissible since an appeal on points of law could only be filed by the defendants and their counsel . On DATE the judgment was issued in writing .

On DATE ORG formally filed a request with the competent NORP authorities , relying on its judgment of DATE , seeking confiscation of the funds deposited on the first applicant ’s bank account in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected this request as unfounded , stating , inter alia , that it could not conclude that the assets in question were indeed of a criminal origin . In particular , there was no evidence that the first applicant had made any deposits during the period when he was alleged to have committed the crimes in question . By DATE , this rejection became final .

On DATE the first applicant was informed by the NORP authorities that he could freely access and make use of his funds on the bank account in question .


Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings .