Georgieva;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON The President of ORG , to which the case was initially allocated , decided that the applicants’ identities should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . They were represented by Ms ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The first applicant is the mother of the second and third applicants . The third applicant is the mother of the fourth applicant . They all live in the same household in a flat located on the first floor of a residential building in GPE

NORP Since DATE the applicants have had various conflicts with their neighbours , Mr GPE and ORG , who live in a flat on the ground floor of the same residential building . Occasionally , they have also had conflicts with their other QUANTITY neighbours , Mr D.P. and PERSON

It follows from a report of ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) available to the ORG , that in the period DATE there were in total CARDINAL police interventions concerning various conflicts between the applicants and their neighbours .

Some of these incidents resulted in the criminal proceedings examined further below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

NORP The majority of the incidents resulted only in the police issuing a verbal caution or in minor offences proceedings . This in particular relates to the police interventions in connection with the following events .

On DATE the police intervened because the first applicant was disturbed by GPE and GPE smoking on their balcony .

On DATE the intervention of the police was requested in relation to an altercation between the second applicant and FAC In particular , they exchanged a series of insults in the course of which ORG also made reference to the second applicant ’s NORP ethnic origin and threw a piece of wood in her direction , causing her a small abrasion on the right thigh . On DATE minor offences proceedings were instituted against both parties to the conflict for breach of public peace and order , but they were discontinued on DATE on the ground of prescription .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police because the second applicant had allegedly disposed of some dirt on her balcony , which resulted in a verbal altercation .

NORP On DATE the police intervened in connection with ORG ’s insults against PERSON ( the first applicant ’s late husband ) related to his NORP ethnic origin , and on DATE instituted minor offences proceedings against ORG for breach of public peace and order . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued on the ground of prescription .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police because water was pouring from the applicants’ balcony into their flat .

On DATE the police intervened because the first applicant had allegedly disposed of some dirt on the balcony of GPE

On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police after a verbal altercation with GPE relating to the manner in which she was dusting .

On DATE TIME reported to the police that the first applicant was threatening him . He did not insist on pursuing the matter but requested the police to warn her .

On DATE the first applicant had a dispute with PERSON concerning her flowers and therefore she requested the intervention of the police .

On DATE police intervention was requested in connection with the first applicant ’s and PERSON ’s mutual insults related to , inter alia , her NORP ethnic origin and his NORP ethnic origin . Minor offences proceedings were instituted on DATE against both participants to the altercation and on DATE they were discontinued on the ground of lack of evidence . This decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE both the first applicant and ORG requested the intervention of the police , alleging an attack by the other party . The police intervened at the scene but found their statements confusing to the extent that it was impossible to establish the exact course of the events .

On DATE the police intervened on the basis of ORG ’s complaint that ORG had insulted and attacked her . The police found that both participants in the alleged attack were providing confusing statements .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police concerning a glass that had fallen from the applicants’ flat on to her balcony .

On DATE lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant , claiming that she had insulted and threatened her . On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zap . ) rejected the criminal complaint as ill - founded .

On DATE PERSON informed the police that water was pouring from the applicants’ flat and that the first applicant had spat on him .

On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , alleging that ORG had insulted her and attacked her while she was holding the fourth applicant . The police found that the third applicant had sustained an abrasion on her left forearm but no evidence that the attack had happened in the presence of the fourth applicant . On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against ORG for breach of public peace and order and on DATE the proceedings were discontinued on the ground of prescription . The Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG was also informed of the incident and it requested a medical report concerning the alleged injuries sustained by the fourth applicant during the incident . On CARDINAL DATE a doctor who had examined the fourth applicant after the incident informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG that he had not found any injuries on the fourth applicant and that the third applicant had refused further medical examinations of the fourth applicant .

On DATE ORG informed the police of a conflict with the applicants .

On DATE the third applicant complained to the police about the problems of her family with GPE and GPE

On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against ORG on charges of making threats . On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG rejected the criminal complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not constitute a criminal offence .

On DATE the police received an anonymous call that the fourth applicant had been molested within her family .

On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against the first and third applicants , GPE , GPE and a certain LJ.B. for mutual insults . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued on formal grounds .

On DATE the third applicant reported to the police that ORG had threatened her .

On DATE ORG reported to the police that PERSON had threatened her . The complaint was forwarded to the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office , which rejected it on DATE on the ground of lack of evidence .

On DATE the first applicant called the police about an incident involving ORG

On DATE ORG complained to the police about an incident involving the applicants’ family .

On DATE the second applicant complained to the police about the conduct of ORG and GPE

On DATE the police received CARDINAL anonymous calls DATE alleging that ORG had been drunk disturbing public peace and order , and the second alleging that there had been fighting in the applicants’ flat . The police interventions did not confirm any of the allegations .

On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , alleging that the second applicant had insulted him .

On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , claiming that the third applicant had attacked his son .

On DATE the police received an anonymous call alleging domestic violence in the applicants’ family .

On DATE the first applicant reported to the police that PERSON had damaged her flowers .

On DATE ORG complained to the police about the conduct of the applicants .

On DATE the third applicant called the police concerning the parking of GPE ’s car .

On DATE PERSON complained to the police about harassment by ORG

On DATE the second applicant reported to the police that PERSON , wife of their neighbour PERSON , had unlawfully installed surveillance cameras in the building . The police established that the complaints were unfounded .

On DATE the third applicant reported to the police that she had had a verbal altercation with ORG concerning the fourth applicant .

On DATE the second applicant reported to the police a verbal altercation with ORG

On DATE the first applicant called the police , maintaining that she had had verbal altercation with ORG

On DATE the police received an anonymous call that the applicants and ORG and GPE had been arguing but the police found no incident at the scene .

On DATE the second applicant reported to the police a verbal altercation with GPE

DATE . On DATE ORG requested police intervention , claiming that the first applicant had insulted her .

On DATE the police received an anonymous call about an incident involving the applicants but the intervention did not disclose any breach of the law .

On DATE the third applicant complained to the police about the conduct of ORG , alleging that she had attacked her .

On DATE first requested police intervention , claiming that she had been physically attacked , and then she lodged a criminal complaint against PERSON on charges of making threats . The Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office rejected the criminal complaint on CARDINAL DATE on the ground of lack of evidence .

On DATE the police received an anonymous call that there was fighting in the applicants’ flat but an intervention at the scene did not confirm that .

On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that ORG had thrown some garbage in front of her flat .

On DATE ORG informed the police that there was fighting inside the applicants’ flat but an intervention at the scene did not confirm that . Later on DATE she lodged a criminal complaint against the first and the third applicants and PERSON on charges of making threats and once again requested the intervention of the police , claiming that somebody from the applicants’ flat had thrown a tomato on to her balcony . The criminal complaint lodged by ORG was rejected by the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG on DATE on the ground of lack of evidence .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police in relation to a verbal altercation with the first applicant .

On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , claiming that he was being harassed by the second applicant .

On DATE B.P. reported to the police that the first applicant had threatened her . She also lodged a criminal complaint which was rejected by the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG on DATE on the ground that the event at issue did not constitute an offence prosecuted ex officio .

On DATE police intervention was requested in connection with a verbal altercation between the first applicant and FAC On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against both of them on charges of breach of public peace and order . On DATE the competent ORG acquitted them on the ground of lack of evidence .

On DATE the police first received an anonymous call that there was fighting inside the applicants’ flat and then ORG requested police intervention , claiming that the first applicant had spilled boiling water on her . Both police interventions could not confirm any unlawful conduct .

On DATE PERSON lodged a criminal complaint with the police against GPE , alleging that he had threatened him during their verbal altercation on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the third applicant and ORG requested the intervention of the police , accusing each other of making threats .

On DATE the first applicant insulted PERSON in the presence of the police officers . She was indicted in ORG and on DATE found guilty on charges of breach of public peace and order . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the second applicant on charges of making threats in connection with their conflict of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG rejected the criminal complaint on the ground of lack of evidence .

On CARDINAL DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that ORG had insulted her .

On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that she was disturbed by the music emanating from GPE ’s flat . The police intervened at the scene and established that there had been a verbal and physical conflict between the parties . Concerning the event the police lodged a criminal complaint against GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on DATE they instituted minor offences proceedings against ORG and the first , second and third applicants on charges of breach of public peace and order . On CARDINAL DATE the competent ORG found them all guilty as charged . It appears that the proceedings are pending on appeal before ORG ( ORG prekršajni sud PERSON ) .

On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that her neighbour PERSON usually closed the entrance doors of the building which disturbed her when she needed to walk her dog .

DATE . On DATE the third applicant called the police in connection with a verbal altercation with ORG but the police found no evidence to confirm any unlawful conduct .

On DATE B.P. reported to the police that the first applicant harassed her child but an intervention did not confirm any such allegations .

On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the second applicant on charges of making threats .

On DATE PERSON requested an intervention of the police , claiming that she had been insulted by the first applicant .

On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , complaining that somebody was knocking on her doors but the police intervention did not confirm any such allegations .

On DATE the third applicant reported to the police that ORG did not allow her to exit the building . The police intervention did not confirm any unlawful conduct .

On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police because the first applicant was allegedly falsely accusing her of stealing electricity .

On DATE the third applicant reported to the police a verbal altercation between ORG and the first applicant .

DATE . On DATE the police intervened on the basis of a complaint by ORG alleging that the third applicant had insulted her . Both parties made allusions to their NORP and NORP ethnic origins respectively . On DATE they lodged criminal complaints on charges of making threats .

On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that PERSON had been provoking her and behaving inappropriately .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police , alleging that the first applicant had insulted her making allusions to her ethnic origin .

On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police in connection with an alleged noise emanating from GPE ’s flat but the police intervention did not confirm any such allegations .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police , claiming that the first applicant had insulted and threatened her husband .

On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police with regard to a dispute she had with the first applicant concerning the electricity bills .

On DATE the police received an anonymous call that a noise was emanating from the applicants’ flat but the police intervention did not confirm that .

On DATE the second applicant requested the intervention of the police , referring to the problems with her neighbours .

On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , claiming that she had been attacked by the third applicant , but the police intervention could not confirm any unlawful conduct .

On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police , alleging that the first applicant had insulted her in the presence of her child .

On DATE the police informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office of the third applicant ’s criminal complaints against ORG of DATE and against GPE of DATE on charges of making threats and discriminatory references to her and PERSON ’s ethnic origin on DATE and DATE .

Based on the allegations contained in the criminal complaint , on DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG indicted ORG and GPE in the ORG ( PERSON . ) .

During the proceedings the Zap . ORG commissioned a psychiatric report concerning ORG

A report of DATE indicated that ORG had a personality disorder but that she was capable of understanding the meaning of her acts . It also recommended ORG ’s psychiatric treatment although not necessarily by ordering it as a safety measure in criminal proceedings .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG dropped the charges against ORG on the ground that they were based on conflicting evidence .

On DATE the Zap . ORG found GPE guilty on charges of making threats and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

M.P. appealed against this judgment to ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) and on DATE the ORG quashed it and ordered a retrial on the ground that the judgment was based on conflicting evidence .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office , relying on the findings of ORG , dropped the charges against GPE on the ground that they were based on conflicting statements of the third applicant and GPE

On DATE the police informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office of the third applicant ’s criminal complaint against ORG of CARDINAL DATE on charges of making threats and discriminatory references to her ethnic origin .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG indicted ORG in the ORG .

On DATE the Zap . ORG found ORG guilty on charges of making threats and sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police in connection with an altercation with GPE and GPE She also lodged a criminal complaint against GPE on charges of making threats .

The matter was reported to the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG and on DATE it indicted GPE in the Zap . ORG on charges of making threats .

On DATE the Zap . ORG issued a penal order against GPE However , he objected to the order and therefore a trial was opened .

Due to a reorganisation of the judicial work , the case file was transferred to ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u ORG ) .

On DATE ORG found GPE guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

This judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .

NORP In connection with the incident of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office indicted PERSON and the first and third applicants in ORG on charges of making threats against ORG

On DATE the Zap . ORG issued a penal order against GPE and the first and third applicants . However , based on their objection the penal order was set aside and a trial was opened .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG dropped the charges against ORG and the first and third applicants on the ground that the charges were based on conflicting witness statements .

On DATE the second applicant instituted a private prosecution in the Zap . ORG against ORG on charges of causing bodily injury in connection with an incident of DATE during which the second applicant had sustained a contusion on the left thigh .

Meanwhile , the case file was transferred to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At a hearing on DATE the second applicant submitted an expert report of CARDINAL DATE concerning the fourth applicant indicating that she was under stress in relation to the conflicts of her family with their neighbours and that there was a possibility of her emotional harassment in that respect . However , the expert report did not confirm any acute or chronic signs of trauma or symptoms or indications of any psychiatric disorder .

At the same hearing , a forensic expert confirmed the second applicant ’s injury .

On DATE ORG found ORG guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police in connection with damage to the front doors of the applicants’ flat caused by ORG On DATE the second applicant lodged a criminal complaint against ORG on charges of causing damage to her property . The complaint was forwarded to the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG indicted ORG in the ORG on charges of causing damage to the second applicant ’s property .

The case file was transferred to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At a hearing on DATE the second applicant set out a civil claim for damages against ORG

During the proceedings , ORG commissioned an expert psychiatric report concerning ORG

An expert report of DATE found that ORG had developed an addiction to alcohol and that she needed treatment which could be ordered as a safety measure in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG found ORG guilty and sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . It also ordered ORG to undergo treatment for her alcohol addiction . The second applicant was instructed that she could claim damages in respect of her front doors in separate civil proceedings .

This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE , following a verbal altercation , GPE physically attacked the second applicant with a wooden stick , causing her injuries to the head and contusions on the left arm , chest and shoulder . On DATE the police intervened at the scene , arrested PERSON and took the necessary actions to investigate the matter .

NORP The case was reported to the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office and on DATE it indicted GPE in the Zap . ORG on charges of attempted grave bodily injury .

On DATE the Zap . ORG ordered GPE not to approach or otherwise contact the first , second and third applicants .

During the proceedings before ORG the second applicant set out her civil claim for damages against GPE

After several unsuccessful attempts to summon the defendant , a hearing was held on DATE at which ORG pleaded not guilty . Further hearings were held on CARDINAL May and DATE and a hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because ORG ’s lawyer withdrew from the case . ORG held further hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

Following a hearing on DATE ORG found PERSON guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended for DATE . The second applicant was instructed that she could seek damages in separate civil proceedings .

On DATE , based on an appeal of ORG , ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a retrial on the ground of conflicting reasoning of the judgment .

According to the applicants , in the resumed proceedings GPE was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . He appealed and the appeal proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG requested the Zap . ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG . ) to facilitate a settlement of her disputes with the third applicant .

A meeting at the Zap . ORG was scheduled for DATE but the parties failed to appear .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other belief , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .

All shall be equal before the law . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

“ Everyone has the right to respect for and legal protection of his or her private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . ”

NORP The relevant provision of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , with further amendments ) provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by ORG in the interest of GPE and its citizens .

( CARDINAL ) NORP In exceptional circumstances the law may provide for criminal proceedings in respect of certain criminal offences to be instituted on the basis of a private prosecution or for ORG to institute criminal proceedings following [ a private ] application . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall only be instituted and conducted upon the order of a qualified prosecutor . ...

( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences that may be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .

( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party may take his place as a subsidiary prosecutor under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . ”

“ Nobody can be tried twice for an offence for which he or she has been tried and in respect of which a final court decision has been adopted . ”

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulated the rights and duties of private prosecutors and of injured parties acting as subsidiary prosecutors . A private prosecutor ( privatni tužitelj ) was an injured party who brought a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such a prosecution was expressly allowed by LAW ( these were offences of a lesser degree ) . An injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor ( oštećeni kao tužitelj ) was a person taking over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities , for whatever reason , had decided not to prosecute ( LAW . When acting as a subsidiary prosecutor , the victim had all rights in the proceedings which ORG would have had as public prosecuting authority , save for those vested in the ORG Attorney ’s ORG as a state body .

Pursuant to LAW , the State Attorney ’s ORG was authorised , on a discretionary basis , to take over a prosecution from a subsidiary prosecutor at any point before the end of the trial .

Relevant provisions concerning the processing of criminal complaints provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney shall reject a criminal complaint by a reasoned decision if the offence in question is not an offence subject to automatic prosecution , if the prosecution is time - barred or an amnesty or pardon has been granted , or other circumstances excluding criminal liability or prosecution exist , or there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed the offence . The ORG Attorney shall inform the victim about his decision ... within DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) and if the criminal complaint was submitted by the police , he shall also inform the police .

The relevant provision of LAW ( Prekršajni zakon , ORG no . DATE ) provides :

“ A minor offence is an act which breaches the public order , social discipline or other social values and is not listed as an offence under LAW or other regulation listing offences . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The competent prosecutor is :

ORG administrative body ,

victim . ”

The relevant part of ORG ( Zakon o prekršajima protiv javnog reda i mira , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; hereinafter : the “ FAC ” ) reads :

“ Whoever in a public place fights , argues , yells or otherwise breaches public order and peace , shall be liable to a fine ... or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE . ”

NORP The relevant parts of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE ) , read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every legal entity and every natural person has the right to respect for their personal integrity under the conditions prescribed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The right to respect for one ’s personal integrity within the meaning of this LAW includes the right to life , physical and mental health , good reputation and honour , the right to be respected , and the right to respect for one ’s name and the privacy of one ’s personal and family life , freedom et alia .

Section CARDINAL

“ Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one ’s personal dignity ( non - pecuniary damage ) . ”

“ Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her rights of personality and the elimination of its consequences . ”

The relevant parts of LAW ( Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) This Act ensures protection and promotion of equality as the highest value of the constitutional order of GPE ; creates conditions for equal opportunities and regulates protection against discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin or skin colour , gender , language , religion , political or other conviction , national or social origin , state of wealth , membership of a trade union , education , social status , marital or family status , age , health , invalidity , genetic inheritance , gender identity , expression or sexual orientation .

( CARDINAL ) Discrimination within the meaning of this LAW means putting any person in a disadvantageous position on any of the grounds under subsection CARDINAL of this section , as well as his or her close relatives .

“ This Act shall be applied in respect of all ORG bodies ... legal entities and natural persons ... ”

“ Anyone who considers that , owing to discrimination , any of his or her rights has been violated may seek protection of that right in proceedings in which the determination of that right is the main issue , and may also seek protection in separate proceedings under LAW of this LAW . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who claims that he or she has been a victim of discrimination in accordance with the provisions of this LAW may bring a claim and seek :

( CARDINAL ) a ruling that the defendant has violated the plaintiff ’s right to equal treatment or that an act or omission by the defendant may lead to the violation of the plaintiff ’s right to equal treatment ( claim for an acknowledgment of discrimination ) ;

( CARDINAL ) a ban on ( the defendant ’s ) undertaking acts which violate or may violate the plaintiff ’s right to equal treatment or an order for measures aimed at removing discrimination or its consequences to be taken ( claim for a ban or for removal of discrimination ) ;

( CARDINAL ) compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the rights protected by LAW ( claim for damages ) ;

( CARDINAL ) an order for a judgment finding a violation of the right to equal treatment to be published in the media at the defendant ’s expense . ”


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

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE ORG ( PERSON , “ the ORG ” ) instituted preliminary investigations ( FAC ) against the CARDINAL applicants and several other persons on account of the suspicion of aggravated fraud ( schwerer gewerbsmässiger FAC ) by having set up and managed an internationally operated gambling system which was based on a pyramid scheme .

On DATE ORG decided that the proceedings against the applicants were to be separated from those of the co - suspects to avoid delays .

On DATE ORG issued an international arrest warrant ( Steckbrief ) in respect of the first applicant . He was in detention on remand from DATE .

On DATE the first applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under LAW of LAW ( Fristsetzungsantrag ) . ORG ( Oberlandesgericht , “ the Court of Appeal ” ) dismissed the request on DATE , stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts , not ORG .

On DATE ORG acquitted the first applicant of all charges . The decision was served on his counsel on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the second applicant . He was in detention on remand from DATE until DATE .

On DATE the preliminary investigations against the second applicant were closed and the file was transferred to ORG , “ the Public Prosecutor ” ) for further processing . However , no indictment was brought against him .

On DATE the second applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under LAW of LAW . ORG dismissed the request on DATE , stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts , not ORG .

On DATE ORG brought an indictment against the second applicant . The second applicant lodged an appeal against the indictment and a motion requesting the discontinuation of the proceedings . On DATE ORG rejected the indictment , but did not discontinue the proceedings .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against the second applicant .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP In DATE he started military service in the armed forces of GPE . Medical records dated DATE drafted by a panel of doctors in his military unit in ORG , stipulated that at that time he had problems communicating with others and was autistic , though he had a normal memory and level of intelligence . He was diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia , which he had developed during military service . On those grounds , he was released from military service .

Having returned from the army to GPE , by DATE he had been treated in psychiatric institutions CARDINAL times . In DATE he was diagnosed with residual and then paranoid schizophrenia .

NORP In DATE the applicant attempted suicide by setting himself on fire . He was admitted to the trauma unit of a hospital .

NORP In reply to a prosecutor ’s request for information , on DATE ORG ( GPE rajono psichikos sveikatos centras ) confirmed that the applicant had been attending there since DATE , and continued to be treated there for schizophrenia . In DATE episodes of the applicant ’s illness became more frequent . That year the applicant attempted to commit suicide ; he did not accept that he was ill . He was admitted to ORG ( PERSON psichiatrijos ligoninė ) , where he spent DATE before being released for outpatient care at his own request . Since DATE the applicant stopped attending PERSON Psychiatric Health Centre and taking his medication , because he firmly refused any consultations with the psychiatrists . He would also submit numerous complaints to various authorities .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother asked a prosecutor to initiate proceedings with a view to her son being declared legally incapacitated . According to her , his mental illness started when he was in the NORP army . She and her husband lived in a house separate from him in neighbouring GPE . By DATE the applicant ’s condition reached such a stage that he was afraid to leave his apartment or let his parents in , and he did not take care of himself . He even attempted to take his own life by setting himself on fire .

On DATE , the prosecutor sent the request by the applicant ’s mother to ORG , together with an extract from the applicant ’s medical records . It was noted that his schizophrenia had worsened and that he had become a danger to himself . He was thus in need of help from others . It was indispensable to ascertain whether there was a basis for declaring him legally incapable , if psychiatrists established that he could not understand or control his actions . The prosecutor relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE of the Code of Civil Procedure , and LAW .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered an expert examination to ascertain ( i ) whether the applicant was suffering from mental illness , ( ii ) whether he could understand his actions and ( iii ) whether he could take part in court proceedings . His mother was to be informed of that decision .

Having examined the applicant in person and scrutinised his medical records , on DATE a psychiatrist concluded that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia . He was also very mistrusting and had strong feelings of persecution . Psychiatrists took into account the letters by his mother to ORG and the prosecutor to the effect that the applicant did not take care of his DATE needs , and had social and health issues and suicidal thoughts . The psychiatrist thus established that the applicant could not correctly understand or control his actions , and noted that he “ could not take part in court proceedings , could not be questioned , and court documents could not be served on him ” .

In a CARDINAL page form sent to ORG on DATE , GPE social services ticked a box to say that they “ agreed ” with the prosecutor ’s request for the applicant to be declared incapacitated . They also indicated that they would not take part in the court hearing , which was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE attempts were made by ORG to personally serve the applicant with the summons concerning the forthcoming hearing for his legal incapacitation and care . The copy of the summons indicated that it had not been served because , according to his next door neighbour , the applicant was mentally ill and opened the door to no one .

At a public hearing on DATE ORG , relying on Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , granted the prosecutor ’s request for the applicant to be declared incapacitated , on the grounds that he could not understand or control his actions . The prosecutor and the applicant ’s mother were in attendance . The applicant ’s mother testified about her son ’s history of mental illness . She also stated that he had recently been living away from his parents , but could not take care of himself , did not pay maintenance fees for his apartment , and would not go out or take his medication .

The ruling stipulated that it could be appealed against within DATE .

The Government submitted that , given the fact that it had not actually been possible to serve the summons on the applicant , the decision of CARDINAL DATE had only been sent to the interested parties in the case , that is to say the applicant ’s mother , the prosecutor and social services .

On DATE the applicant drafted what appears to be a response to the prosecutor ’s request of DATE to incapacitate him . Therein he mentions that he received a copy of the prosecutor ’s request on DATE . The letter appears essentially to be a complaint about his treatment in psychiatric hospitals and diagnosis with schizophrenia . He concludes by stating that because of obvious forgery of his medical examination results and clear bias on the part of the prosecutor , the applicant refused to undergo medical examination in GPE . A stamp on the letter indicates that it was received by ORG on DATE .

Having established that the applicant was legally incapacitated , by a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG appointed the applicant ’s mother as his guardian and the administrator of his property . The decision was taken at a public hearing in which she , a prosecutor and a representative from social services took part . The ruling stipulated that the applicant had not taken part because of ill - health .

The applicant was forcibly admitted to ORG on DATE , after showing signs of agitation and behaving aggressively towards his parents . The police and some firemen had to break down the door of his apartment to get to him . On DATE he consented to treatment until DATE , when he refused any further treatment in writing .

On DATE ORG asked ORG ( “ ORG ” ) to provide legal aid to the applicant , who was to be forcibly hospitalised . It was granted DATE , and a lawyer was appointed to represent him .

DATE , in the presence of a psychiatrist and the appointed lawyer , ORG granted a request by the psychiatric hospital for the applicant to be forcibly hospitalised . The court noted that the applicant was absolutely uncritical of his own behaviour , and that his state of mind at that time meant that he posed a danger to himself and others . The ruling was final and not appealable . It indicated that on DATE the applicant had been declared legally incapacitated , and that on DATE his mother had been appointed as his guardian .

The Government submitted to the court an extract from the applicant ’s medical records , which indicated that he had been at ORG from DATE until DATE . The doctor indicated in that record that a copy of the court ruling of CARDINAL DATE had been given to the applicant . It is not clear when that was done .

The Government submitted that the court decision of CARDINAL DATE had been handed to the applicant by his treating doctor on DATE .

On DATE the applicant signed a document certifying that his treatment plan from ORG had been explained to him and that he agreed to follow it .

Having been released from the psychiatric hospital , on DATE the applicant approached ORG . In his application he wrote that by a ruling of DATE he had been declared legally incapacitated , and that he would need the time - limit for appealing against it to be renewed . He also indicated that in DATE his mother had been appointed his guardian and the administrator of his property . He noted that he had not known about the CARDINAL decisions until DATE , upon his admission to ORG . He also expressed a wish to appeal against them .

On DATE ORG refused the request as having no prospect of success . It noted that the applicant fell into the category of people entitled to legal aid ; however , given that the proceedings for his incapacitation had been terminated , his request for legal aid was clearly irrelevant .

ORG noted that the decisions the applicant wished to challenge had been taken in DATE . Given that he had not requested legal aid until DATE , he had missed the deadline for appeal against those decisions . Representing him in such proceedings would have had no prospect of success .

As to the appointment of the applicant ’s mother as his legal guardian , ORG indicated that he had given no grounds for doubting her ability to perform her duties as guardian and the administrator of his property . Lastly , it observed that guardianship could be revoked at the request of a prosecutor or social services . Given that the applicant himself could not apply to the court with such a request , there was no legal basis for providing him legal assistance .

On DATE the applicant requested that ORG give him a copy of the court rulings regarding his incapacitation and the appointment of his legal guardian .

On DATE a judge of ORG wrote to the applicant informing him that those court rulings would not be given to him , because his mother had been appointed as his legal guardian and the administrator of his property .

In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case , sent to ORG , the Government noted that at that time the applicant had lived separately in his own apartment . He had been unemployed but had received disability pension . His guardian had helped him with DATE chores . He had also received regular outpatient treatment at FAC .

On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG prosecutor ’s office that in DATE he had been forcibly admitted to ORG and made to undergo medical treatment . The applicant asked that a pre - trial investigation be opened regarding his allegations .

By a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the applicant ’s complaints about events in DATE were unfounded .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Pecuniary damage - award;Just satisfaction partially reserved

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen

Maggio and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The applicants worked in GPE for the following periods of time , in total , over the relevant DATE :

Mr Stefanetti : DATE ;

Mr PERSON : DATE ;


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)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Narva .

On DATE the applicant , in misdemeanour proceedings , was fined MONEY ( ORG ) by a police officer of ORG of the Police and ORG for a breach of public order ( breaking a glass panel of a bus shelter ) .

The applicant contested this decision before ORG . He argued that he had not committed the act in question and challenged the assessment of witness statements . He complained about the failure of the police to present him to a witness for identification . Lastly , he complained that the police had not indicated in its decision the specific provisions of the local rules on public order which he had allegedly breached .

ORG sent summons to the applicant for a hearing scheduled for DATE at TIME It was noted in the summons that the applicant ’s participation in the hearing was mandatory . Furthermore , it was noted , with reference to LAW ( ORG seadustik ) , that if a complainant failed to appear at the hearing , although he had been notified of the obligation to participate , and the hearing was not adjourned , the court would refuse to examine the complaint . The applicant ’s counsel , a representative of the police prefecture and witnesses were also summoned .

The summons sent to the applicant ’s address , which he had used throughout the proceedings and which had been indicated in his complaint , could not be served on him personally as he was not present on DATE when the court ’s security officer attempted to serve the summons . His mother refused to accept the summons and said that the applicant was living abroad . The applicant ’s counsel received the summons on DATE . The witnesses also received the summons in DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a ruling by which the applicant ’s complaint was admitted for the proceedings . According to the ruling the hearing was scheduled for DATE at TIME and the names of persons to be summoned to the hearing were set out .

On DATE ORG held its hearing . The applicant did not appear . His counsel asked the court to examine the matter without the applicant ’s presence as the applicant was abroad and it was not known when he would return to GPE . According to the applicant ’s father , who was in the courtroom as a spectator , the applicant was not to return to GPE within DATE . ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s complaint . It delivered its decision in writing on DATE .

According to ORG decision , the applicant had failed to inform the authorities of his new address . However , as the applicant ’s father was aware of the time of the court hearing and of the applicant ’s intention not to return to GPE within DATE , the court concluded that the applicant ’s parents were communicating both with the applicant and his counsel . Thus , the applicant must have been aware of the court hearing and summons sent to him .

ORG found that in view of the substance of the misdemeanour case and the court ’s duty to hear a misdemeanour matter in its entirety , regardless of the limits of the complaint filed , and to verify the factual and legal circumstances on the basis of which the body conducting the extra - judicial proceedings ( that is , the police ) had made its decision , it was not possible to examine the case without the applicant ’s participation . It noted that one of the complaints made by the applicant had been that the body conducting the extra - judicial proceedings had not presented the applicant for identification to the witness . Thus , interviewing of the applicant and presenting him for recognition to the witness were important steps for the adjudication of the matter which could not be accomplished without the applicant ’s participation . The court considered that adjourning the hearing would serve no purpose since the applicant was not to return to GPE within DATE the time - limit for which a hearing could be adjourned under the law of procedure . Moreover , the applicant ’s counsel had not requested an adjournment but examination of the complaint without the applicant ’s presence . However , for the above reasons the court did not consider it possible to examine the case without the applicant . Relying on LAW which provided that if a complainant failed to appear at the hearing although he had been notified of the obligation to participate in the court hearing DATE ORG refused to examine the complaint .

The applicant ’s counsel appealed , relying , inter alia , on LAW § CARDINAL ( c ) of the LAW according to which a person had the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing . The receipt of the summons was not disputed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the first - instance court . It noted that under LAW the court could decide on a discretionary basis whether a complainant ’s participation in the court hearing was necessary and , if needed , oblige the person in question to appear . In the case at hand ORG had given reasons as to why the applicant ’s participation was required and it was not possible to examine the case in his absence . ORG pointed out that the applicant had challenged in his complaint to ORG the failure of the police to present him to witnesses for identification . It was , however , unclear , how ORG could have eliminated this deficiency in the applicant ’s absence .

No appeal lay against ORG ruling .


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

The applicant met his former partner , ORG , a NORP national , in DATE . They began living together in GPE ( GPE ) and had a daughter , who was born on DATE .

According to the applicant , after the baby was born PERSON began engaging in obsessive behaviour and their relationship deteriorated .

NORP In DATE PERSON spent DATE in GPE with their daughter . In DATE of DATE she again travelled to GPE with the baby . It was agreed that the applicant would fetch them on DATE and drive them back to GPE . While on his way to GPE , the applicant was informed by PERSON that she did not intend to return to GPE .

The applicant first returned to GPE ( without having reached GPE ) ; he then set off again for GPE , where ( after arriving ) PERSON initially denied him access to his daughter . After DATE , PERSON allowed the applicant to see the baby and informed him that he could see her again , provided that he agreed to let his daughter stay in GPE with PERSON and pay MONEY ( ORG ) per month in child support . The applicant rejected this proposal and on DATE returned to GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG requesting that the court strip PERSON of parental authority over their daughter , order the return of the child to GPE and grant him exclusive custody .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with ORG for the child ’s return , pursuant to LAW DATE on ORG ( hereinafter , “ LAW ” ) .

On DATE the Pest Central District Court found that PERSON was keeping the child in GPE illegally and ordered that she return the child to the applicant ’s residence in GPE by DATE . Alternatively , the child should be handed to the applicant or his proxy in GPE no later than DATE .

Following an appeal by PERSON , on DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG and ordered that the child be returned to GPE by DATE or to the applicant or his proxy in GPE by DATE .

Following a further appeal by PERSON , that decision was upheld by ORG on DATE ; nevertheless , the child was not returned to the applicant .

An enforcement order based on the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE was issued on DATE against ORG bailiff of ORG instructed the mother to comply with the final decision and return the child to the applicant within DATE and ordered her to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG – approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

Criminal proceedings against ORG were initiated in DATE by the LOC public prosecutor and a NORP arrest warrant was issued against her .

On DATE ORG found that it had jurisdiction to examine the applicant ’s case pursuant to articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of Council Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , allowed the applicant ’s application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stripped PERSON of her parental authority and , like its NORP counterpart , ordered the immediate return of the child to GPE .

On DATE the preliminary - investigations judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ) issued an arrest warrant against PERSON for the offence of international child abduction .

On DATE a NORP arrest warrant was issued against PERSON by ORG .

On DATE the court bailiff sent a copy of the return order to the guardianship office of LOC in order to enable the said authority to serve it on PERSON and to inform her of the consequences of failing to comply with the order .

On DATE CARDINAL members of the GPE guardianship office ’s staff attempted to serve the order on PERSON ; they were unsuccessful as they were unable to enter her home . As PERSON ’s post box was in a locked part of the building , they were not able to leave behind any notification either . They went to the registered address of ORG mother but they could not find anybody there either . They left behind a notification in the post box there informing PERSON of their attempt to enter her home and of the date of the next visit by guardianship office staff .

On DATE guardianship office staff again visited the registered permanent address of ORG and the registered residential address of her mother but again failed to serve the enforcement order on her .

In DATE ORG conducted mediation proceedings through the legal representatives of PERSON and the applicant in order to try to reach an amicable agreement .

On DATE the LOC public prosecutor lodged by means of a letter rogatory an application with ORG for judicial assistance . The application was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not yet enforceable ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the requirement of dual criminality was not satisfied .

On DATE ORG allowed an application lodged by PERSON for the return order issued by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to be suspended , but this decision was subsequently quashed by the Szolnok High Court on DATE . On DATE ORG refused another similar application lodged by PERSON Following an appeal by PERSON , the latter decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the deputy court bailiff , accompanied by police officers and guardianship office staff , visited PERSON ’s registered address and the residential address of her mother , but no one answered the door .

On DATE the bailiff attempted to serve the enforcement order at the same addresses , but with no success , as PERSON and her daughter had absconded . The guardianship office informed the court bailiff that they had no useful information concerning the whereabouts of PERSON and her daughter .

On an unspecified date , PERSON lodged an application for the enforcement proceedings to be terminated ; that application was refused by ORG on DATE . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE an international search warrant was issued by the GPE police .

On DATE the Szolnok ORG declared the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforceable . On DATE , following an appeal by ORG , that decision was quashed by the Szolnok ORG .

The GPE district prosecutor ’s office ordered an investigation in respect of PERSON concerning the unauthorised custody of a minor and the endangering of a minor on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE PERSON was summoned as a suspect , but she failed to appear .

On DATE an arrest warrant was issued against PERSON

On DATE the bailiff unsuccessfully tried to serve the enforcement order on PERSON at her registered residential address . Residents of the area were not able to provide any useful information to the bailiff .

Following an appeal by the applicant against the PERSON judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the GPE declared the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforceable .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor lodged by means of a letter rogatory a further application for judicial assistance and requested that the LOC police be authorised to assist the local judicial police with the execution of the arrest warrant . On DATE ORG dismissed this application on the grounds that the conduct described in the criminal complaint could be classified as kidnapping under LAW , but not under LAW .

On DATE staff of the GPE guardianship office visited PERSON ’s registered address and her mother ’s home , but their attempts to serve the enforcement order failed .

The Government pointed out that several searches and other procedural actions had failed to generate any results . In order to identify ORG ’s place of residence , they had checked the database of ORG and requested data from all those of the country ’s financial institutions that provided payment services . Moreover they had requested data from the mobile phone companies , the NORP ORG , the NORP tax and customs authorities , and regional and local tax and customs agencies ; they had also run checks in the databases of companies providing card services to regular customers in the territory of GPE .

On DATE ORG , during the criminal prosecution against PERSON for child abduction , heard GPE , the child ’s paediatrician . PERSON said that she had visited the child several times over DATE . In particular , on DATE she had issued a medical certificate which had been required for the child ’s enrolment in a kindergarten .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that the NORP authorities were still not able to execute the return order because they had still not identified PERSON ’s place of residence .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE LOC heard CARDINAL of ORG relatives , who all stated that PERSON was living in hiding .

On DATE PERSON was acquitted by ORG . The text of this judgment was not produced before the ORG .

The GPE Attorney - General lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Szolnok High Court .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor lodged by means of a letter rogatory a further application for judicial assistance . This application was dismissed .

According to the latest information received by ORG , in DATE the criminal proceedings against PERSON were still pending ORG and the return order of the applicant ’s daughter had not yet been enforced .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Torture)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The facts of the applicant ’s ill - treatment were established in a judgment of ORG of Orenburg of DATE , as upheld on DATE by ORG , and are as follows .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested at a bus stop by police officers of the criminal investigation unit and taken to a police station in GPE ( УВД по г. GPE ) . From TIME on DATE , and from TIME to TIME on DATE , police officers PERSON subjected the applicant to physical and psychological violence in order to obtain a confession from him about a drug - related crime which they suspected him of having committed .

The facts of the ill - treatment on DATE were established as follows . Officers PERSON and PERSON pushed the applicant to the floor and punched and kicked him numerous times in the head , face , chest , arms and legs . PERSON placed a plastic bag over his head , closing off his access to air , while PERSON held him down . As regards the ill - treatment on CARDINAL DATE , officers PERSON punched the applicant numerous times in the head and threatened to detain him .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs and placed in a temporary detention facility .

On DATE the applicant was released after giving an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . On DATE he sought medical help at a traumatology centre ( TP no . CARDINAL ) . According to his medical records , he had abrasions on his forearms , a bruise under his right eye , a bruise in the left lumbar region and abrasions on his legs .

On DATE the applicant made a complaint to the GPE regional investigative committee regarding his illtreatment .

On DATE he underwent a forensic medical examination ordered by the investigation authority . According to report no . DATE , he had the following injuries : ( i ) a haematoma ( swelling ) of the soft tissues in the parietal region of the head , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY ; ( ii ) CARDINAL bruises of indefinite form on the right infraorbital region of the face , on his neck , on the left side of his chest and around the right iliac ( hip ) bone , measuring up to QUANTITY each ; and ( iii ) CARDINAL abrasions , some linear and some of indefinite form , on both forearms , his right hip and left lower leg , measuring from PERCENT by QUANTITY to CARDINAL by QUANTITY each . The expert concluded that the applicant ’s injuries had resulted from being struck repeatedly with a hard , blunt object with a limited surface area on DATE of the alleged incident , and had not caused any “ health damage ” . Subsequent forensic medical expert reports of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE came to similar conclusions . It was stated in the first of those reports that the applicant ’s injuries had been caused by CARDINAL traumatic blows to his body .

Officers PERSON and PERSON were convicted under LAW ( a ) of LAW and banned from exercising official duties for DATE . They were also given a DATE suspended sentence with a DATE probation period , which required them to appear DATE before the Service for the Execution of Sentences and disclose any change of place of work or residence .

The following circumstances were taken into account in sentencing the police officers . The fact that officer PERSON had a child under DATE was considered a mitigating circumstance , while the fact that he and PERSON had committed the crime with a group of other officers was considered an aggravating circumstance . It was further taken into account that PERSON and PERSON had positive references from their places of work and residence , had no previous convictions , and had led a law - abiding way of life without committing any administrative offences for DATE since the crime had been committed .

On DATE criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW of LAW ( possession of large quantities of drugs ) were terminated for absence of a crime , pursuant to LAW .

In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against ORG , seeking MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for his unlawful detention and illtreatment in police custody by PERSON and M.

On DATE ORG of PERSON allowed the applicant ’s claim in part and awarded him RUB CARDINAL . In determining the amount of compensation , the court found that the applicant had sustained injuries as a result of the police ORG actions and had experienced physical and mental suffering , but that this had not caused him any “ health damage ” .

The applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG , which on DATE increased the amount of compensation to RUB CARDINAL .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and are currently detained in ORG ( GPE , GPE ) .

The first applicant was arraigned in court on DATE and was remanded on DATE on drug - related charges . He is currently in pretrial detention .

The first applicant submitted that in DATE when he arrived in prison he had been placed in Division CARDINAL , a disciplinary division with very strict standards and no privacy . No one spoke his language in that division . He was eventually moved to ORG , where again no one spoke his language . The applicant alleged that items belonging to him had been stolen and the prison authorities had ignored his complaints , as a result of which he went on hunger strike for DATE CARDINAL ( the latter action is indicated in the applicant ’s medical records submitted to the ORG ) . According to the ORG , from the official records ( which were not submitted to ORG ) it did not appear that the applicant had ever complained about the matter to the prison authorities .

After DATE the first applicant was transferred to Division CARDINAL . The records held by the prison authorities show that he is currently being held in cell no . CARDINAL , which is situated in FAC . This division is located in the older section of the prison building that has undergone various stages of upgrading and renovation . However , the possibilities for further improvements are limited owing to the manner in which the building is constructed , such as with high windows and thick walls .

The first applicant has been occupying cell no . CARDINAL as sole occupant .

The applicant submitted that in order to make his cell habitable he had had to paint it himself and equip it with proper lighting . By the ORG ’s admission , the painting of cells appears to be the normal procedure amongst inmates and the paint is provided by the authorities free of charge . However , the Government contended that the cell had already been equipped with artificial lighting , which was dealt with by the prison electrician , not inmates .

There are CARDINAL ventilators and a window in cell no . CARDINAL . The wallmounted ventilator measures QUANTITY by QUANTITY and is covered by a rectangular piece of cardboard and there is another smaller ventilator in the ceiling . The applicant submitted that when it rained , water would pour in through the wall - mounted ventilator , which he considered was simply a hole in the wall , and which was covered by cardboard to stop the wind entering in DATE in consequence it rendered the room devoid of any ventilation .

The cell has a window , behind which are CARDINAL iron grids and a third layer of exterior iron bars . The window consists of both a perspex section that allows daylight to enter and a wooden part . Both sections can in principle be opened and closed from within the cell . The window is situated at a height of QUANTITY and measures QUANTITY in width by QUANTITY in height . According to the Government ( and from the photographs submitted ) the window in cell no . CARDINAL is always kept closed by the occupant , despite the fact that he could open and close it by climbing onto the bed . The applicant submitted that windows in other divisions were much lower .

In his cell , in order to attempt to open the window he had to stand on the sink and reach for the lock by means of a piece of wood . The window , once opened , had to be kept open by means of some support , such as a metal or wooden plank , which was not usually allowed in prison . The applicant , who is of a heavy build , is unable to open such a window without the help of other lighter inmates . The Government contested that allegation , arguing that the window could be opened by using a tool ( a QUANTITY arm ) which is available to inmates for opening and closing windows as necessary . In any case , the applicant could climb onto the bed to open and close the window .

Lighting in cell no . CARDINAL consists of a ceiling light and CARDINAL wallmounted portable lamps , which may be moved about throughout the cell as required ( both QUANTITY ) .

According to the first applicant , there was often no running water in the cell and any water was surely not potable . However , according to the Government , running water was available in each cell , including cell no . CARDINAL ( photographs submitted ) , and NORP tap water flowing through FAC was certified for human consumption , as outlined by the certificate issued by ORG , dated DATE , submitted to ORG . Furthermore , according to ORG , each division was equipped with a purified potable water system , which could be accessed by all inmates .

Inmates are also permitted to buy bottled water from the tuck - shop ( a pack of CARDINAL bottles cost MONEY ( ORG ) or ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per bottle ) . Every inmate is given “ gratuity ” money for such purchases amounting to ORG CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant received ORG CARDINAL as gratuity money during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE . Inmates are also given the opportunity to work against a nominal payment of ORG CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant received EUR CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE for his work .

The Government admitted that there was no combined flushing toilet system installed in ORG due to the nature of the structure of the building , so inmates had to flush their own personal toilet by means of a water bucket provided within each cell . To this end , there were wall - mounted water taps in order to fill the buckets with water . Combined flushing toilets were available in the new part of the prison . The first applicant alleged that there was often no running water for flushing .

All inmates have access to showers at divisional level and no cell is provided with an in - cell shower . Furthermore , all inmates can use the showers numerous times DATE , for as long as necessary ; the showers are open for TIME a day . However , the first applicant claimed that there were CARDINAL shower cubicles , CARDINAL of which had no running water but just a plastic bottle of water , while another did not have a showerhead . Thus , CARDINAL of the showers was functional . The Government contested that allegation , arguing that sometimes the showers were damaged by the inmates . Other inmates fixed them temporarily until the authorities in turn fixed the outlets appropriately .

According to the first applicant , hot water was often not available in DATE and frequently no water was available in DATE . He submitted that complaints about the lack of water were often made to the prison guards , but they were not noted down . The Government submitted that water supply was available all DATE round . The same applied to hot water , which was however subject to short time lags until the water reheated whenever the water was running continuously . The authorities also made available an external water supply in the event of shortages ( particularly in DATE , when water bowsers were brought in to increase the water supply ) .

According to the Government , no cell in any part of the prison building ( either the old block or the new block ) is equipped with a heater . During DATE , the inmates are allowed fans to cool down their cells . The first applicant has CARDINAL fans in his cell .

According to the photographs submitted , the state of cell no . CARDINAL was tidy .

Inmates were permitted to purchase other non - essential items for their cells , including televisions or monitors , DVD players , or game consoles upon request . The first applicant ’s requests have all been granted .

The first applicant claimed that his cell was damp and humid . According to the Government , an inspection of cell no . CARDINAL conducted by prison officials detected no mould in the cell .

The first applicant alleged that he had been asked to pay for his own medication , but as he had been unable to pay , he had remained in pain . The Government submitted that he had been in receipt of various medicines provided free of charge through ORG ( PHS ) in line with LAW of ORG ) . According to the records held by the authorities ( submitted to ORG ) , it also transpired that the first applicant had been visited CARDINAL times by a doctor DATE ( following the applicant ’s admission on remand ) and DATE . On CARDINAL occasions , the prescription of medicines had been required and in fact CARDINAL medicines had been provided to the applicant . Those medicines were supplied by the PHS except for the ORG sachets , where a generic alternative was provided instead . It transpires that the applicant has not made any purchases relative to “ self - recommendations ” ( the non - acceptance of generic medicine against branded medicine , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The first applicant claimed that he had not been allowed to make telephone calls at TIME , which was the only time he could reach his relatives .

The Government referred to the relevant regulations ( see Relevant Domestic Law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) but stated that in practice , all inmates were allowed any number of calls TIME and TIME As from DATE the times were changed to TIME and TIME and TIME Inmates who work were granted a specific period TIME No calls could be made TIME and TIME , during which time inmates were confined to their cells .

Inmates are given CARDINAL EUR CARDINAL telephone cards DATE on DATE . The first applicant has been in receipt of those cards since his arrival in prison . From the records held by the authorities it also transpires that the applicant availed himself of the opportunity to call abroad using his cards on average CARDINAL times a day during DATE to CARDINAL DATE . This refers to calls lasting a minimum of TIME . Shorter calls were also made . A detailed analysis of the calls lasting TIME shows that CARDINAL of them lasted over TIME , while some lasted TIME . In terms of the time during which the calls were made , CARDINAL ( PERCENT of the calls ) were registered during TIME , while the remaining CARDINAL calls ( PERCENT ) were registered TIME and TIME It also transpires that the applicant has availed himself of incoming call times ranging from TIME ( PERCENT of the calls were registered DATE and DATE ) . The rest of the calls ( PERCENT ) were registered TIME and TIME He received CARDINAL incoming calls in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . According to the Government the applicant has never submitted a written request to the director for permission to make calls at CARDINAL p.m.

The second applicant is currently serving a term of imprisonment for drugrelated offences . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and fined ORG CARDINAL by ORG on DATE .

From the prison authorities’ records , it transpires that the second applicant is being held in cell no . CARDINAL , situated in FAC of ORG . While the applicant complained of a lack of living space in the dormitories of QUANTITY persons ( sic . ) , the Government argued that he had been occupying the said cell as sole occupant . It does not appear that he has made any prior complaint about his cell or any specific aspect of his detention to the prison authorities , nor has he requested to change cell .

The complaint and the general conditions of detention pertaining to the second applicant are the same as described in respect of the first applicant ( above ) , with a few differences as set out below .

The second applicant submitted that he generally left his window open . He claimed that it was not possible to open the window by climbing onto the bed . The window was situated QUANTITY above the sink , and thus it was only by standing on the sink that one could open it . Lighting consisted of a ceiling light and CARDINAL wall - mounted portable lamp , which he had purchased himself DATE he had not requested an additional lamp , although inmates were in fact allowed CARDINAL lamps .

According to the second applicant there was often no running water in the cell . However , according to the Government , tap water was available in each cell , including cell no . CARDINAL ( photographs submitted ) .

The second applicant received gratuity money amounting to ORG CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE , as well as ORG CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE for work carried out by him .

The second applicant submitted that he had CARDINAL fans in his cell . He claimed that in DATE the cold was terrible and made him ill . He maintained that he often did not have bed linen or blankets , sometimes not even a bed to sleep on . The Government contested the allegation , asserting that each inmate , including the second applicant , was provided with CARDINAL sets of bed linen and CARDINAL blankets , that further blankets were available on request and that beds were a staple in every cell . No record of such a complaint had been found by the Government .

According to the ORG , the second applicant kept his cell in a disorderly and unkempt state . When the prison authorities , through the correctional supervisor , had brought this to the applicant ’s attention , he had replied that the mess was due to his ongoing personal family troubles and he promised to clean his room .

The second applicant ’s requests for non - essential items have all been granted .

A part of cell no . CARDINAL shows signs of dampness , which produces mould ( QUANTITY as transpires from a photograph submitted ) . The applicant submitted that the photograph was not realistic and that in reality there was mould in a larger part of the cell . This had given him asthma , a condition he had never suffered from before .

The Government pointed out that the second applicant had been in receipt of various medicines provided free of charge through the PHS . According to the Government , it transpires from the records held by the authorities that he had been visited CARDINAL times by a doctor DATE applicant ’s admission on remand ) and DATE . On CARDINAL occasions , prescriptive medicines had been required and in fact CARDINAL medicines had been provided to him . Those medicines had been supplied by the PHS , except for a specific shampoo , where a generic alternative had been provided instead .

The second applicant claimed that he had had to purchase some medicines himself . However , according to the Government , that was a choice made by the applicant himself . From the records held by the authorities , it transpires that a number of “ self - recommendations ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were registered on the applicant ’s behalf . They concerned ear drops to remove ear wax , PERSON , a number of vitamins and Daktarin powder .

Lastly , the second applicant claimed that he had been made to take medicine without any explanations , and that he was not allowed access to the yard .

On DATE ORG sentenced the third applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and to a fine of LAW for drugrelated offences .

From the prison authorities’ records , it transpires that the third applicant is being held in cell no . CARDINAL , which is situated in Division CARDINAL . At the time of the introduction of the application he had been in ORG for DATE and DATE . He has been occupying the said cell as sole occupant . He has never made any complaint relative to his cell or to any specific aspect of his detention to the prison authorities , nor has he requested a transfer from CARDINAL division to another . The general conditions of detention pertaining to the third applicant are the same as for the other CARDINAL applicants ( above ) , with a few differences as set out below .

According to the third applicant , there was only CARDINAL ceiling ventilator in his cell , which he claimed did not work . The Government contested that statement . The applicant submitted that there were CARDINAL portable lamps –the ceiling lamp was controlled centrally and could not be switched on or off as needed . From the photographs submitted it appears that cell no . CARDINAL is kept in a relatively tidy state . The third applicant has been allowed to acquire other non - essential items in the cell . He claimed that they did not require authorisation . He also alleged that CARDINAL of his personal fans had been removed from his cell after the photographs had been taken . The Government submitted that apart from the ceiling fan , the applicant had another fan in his cell , and that CARDINAL box fan per inmate was allowed .

According to the Government , an inspection of cell no . CARDINAL conducted by the prison officials did not detect any mould . However , the third applicant submitted that there was QUANTITY of mould around his sink .

The third applicant also complained of a lack of running water ( contested by the Government ) and flushing toilet system . He claimed that the lack of water , particularly the inability to flush the toilet , created unhygienic conditions . Also , the relevant equipment to clean the room was not provided . He alleged that he had been regularly sick because of the tap water in his room and that the doctor had told him that he should not drink it . The Government submitted that according to the doctor ’s report ( submitted to the ORG ) , the applicant had never complained of bowel problems or complained to the doctor about the tap water . Nor had it been substantiated that he had received such a reply from the doctor . The applicant pointed out that the result of the tests carried out by the ORG had not referred to water collected in his room , as no water had been collected .

The third applicant received EUR MONEY as gratuity money during DATE , EUR CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE . He also received EUR CARDINAL during DATE , EUR CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL during DATE ( DATE ) for work he had carried out .

The third applicant also received various medicines provided free of charge through the PHS . From the records held by the authorities it also transpires that he was visited CARDINAL times by a doctor between CARDINAL DATE ( following the applicant ’s admission in detention on remand ) and CARDINAL DATE . On QUANTITY occasions , the prescription of medicines was required and in fact QUANTITY medicines were provided to him . Those medicines were supplied by the PHS , except for cold - relief tablets and a cream , for which a generic alternative was provided . It transpires that CARDINAL “ self - recommendations ” were registered on behalf of the applicant : a pain killer and a cream which was only available free of charge through the PHS if it had been prescribed by a consultant dermatologist , which was not the case for the applicant .