Branko Lubarda;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG by ORG ) , an association based in GPE .

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

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

On DATE at TIME the applicant ’s DATE son PERSON was on his way to work . While he was on the pavement intending to cross the street at a zebra crossing , he was hooked by the lateral right side of a lorry and dragged under the wheels of its trailer . He died immediately . The lorry , driven by PERSON , was carrying CARDINAL workers from their place of work to their homes .

NORP Immediately after the accident the police arrived at the scene and started drafting the crime scene report , which included identification data of the parties involved in the accident and of QUANTITY eyewitnesses , various measurements , a description of the lorry and of the area where the accident happened as well as photographs . PERSON was sent to the hospital for a blood alcohol test .

DATE a criminal investigation was started against PERSON for unintentional killing . The police took written statements from CARDINAL eyewitnesses . ORG explained that she had been QUANTITY behind PERSON , who had been on the pavement “ at the zebra crossing ” , when he had stumbled on a manhole cover then lost his balance and fallen under the wheels of a small lorry . She mentioned that , when the accident had happened , the traffic lights had been green for cars . GPE , GPE and ORG , who were passengers in the lorry involved in the accident , stated that the lorry in question had been moving slowly on the inside lane towards green traffic lights when they had seen the victim hurrying on the pavement towards their vehicle . When ORG and ORG had looked in the right side mirror , they had seen the victim stumbling and falling under the lorry . The lorry ’s driver had stopped immediately to see what had happened . PERSON also mentioned that the lorry had been travelling at a speed of CARDINAL kph because at that time of day the traffic was busy . At a later date , GPE and ORG , who were also in the lorry at the time of the accident , gave similar statements .

In DATE statements were taken from GPE and GPE , work colleagues of the victim , as well as the victim ’s brother , PERSON , who had all seen the accident from across the street . PERSON mentioned that she had been waiting for the bus to go to work together with GPE and other colleagues including PERSON After their bus left the traffic lights and arrived at the stop where she had been waiting , she saw that the cars in the opposite lane were all stopped at the red traffic light and that only the lorry in question was moving . Immediately afterwards , she saw PERSON lying on the road . She explained that the lorry had been moving at high speed and that she had seen PERSON standing on the kerb of the pavement in front of the zebra crossing and not crossing the street . She did not see how PERSON had fallen under the lorry ’s wheels . PERSON and PERSON gave similar accounts of the events .

On an unspecified date PERSON , a witness proposed by the applicant , stated to the police that at the time of the accident he had been walking on the opposite side of the street when he had heard a noise and had turned to see what had happened . At that point he had noticed that all the cars had stopped on both sides of the road and that the traffic lights had been red for cars . The traffic lights for the zebra crossing had been green but he had not seen any pedestrian crossing at that moment .

On various dates polygraph tests were carried out on some of the witnesses . The results of blood alcohol tests came back negative for both the victim and PERSON

On DATE the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party .

On DATE an independent technical expert was chosen and specific questions were raised for his analysis in the presence of GPE and the applicant . A record was drawn up stating that the parties had had no objections to the expert chosen or to the questions . Subsequently , the expert , accompanied by the applicant , went to the site of the accident for technical verifications . A record was drawn up of his findings , and of the applicant ’s version of the facts , namely that PERSON had been crossing the street at a zebra crossing while the traffic lights were on green for pedestrians , when the lorry , which was moving at high speed , hooked him with its right side .

On DATE the technical expert report was submitted to the investigating authorities . After a thorough analysis of the conflicting statements given by the work colleagues of the CARDINAL parties , corroborated by the statement given by ORG , and with technical data such as the sequence of the traffic lights obtained from the traffic control authorities , the report established that on DATE at TIME was driving a small lorry with a trailer on the inside lane of the road next to the pavement . When the lorry reached the zebra crossing in question the traffic lights were green for cars and the victim , who was running towards the street , had tried to stop before stepping onto the road but had stumbled and bumped against the right side of the lorry ’s trailer and was dragged underneath it . The expert mentioned that the speed of the truck could not be calculated mathematically because the brake marks had not been measured after the accident . However , from the distance to which the victim was thrown – CARDINAL m – and the spot where the lorry stopped after the impact , it could be analytically inferred that the speed had been low . The report concluded that the driver had not breached any traffic rules and could not have avoided the accident .

On DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , submitted objections to the technical expert report . He requested that the expert be required to determine precisely what the speed of the lorry had been , how the charge had been arranged in the open trailer , what had been the sequence of the traffic lights , whether the victim had been run over or hit by the lorry and whether the driver was guilty of causing the accident . On DATE these requests were dismissed by the prosecutor in a reasoned decision since these aspects had already been clarified in the report .

The investigation was concluded on DATE with the prosecutor ’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against PERSON for the crime of unintentional killing because no guilt could be established . The prosecutor examined the conflicting statements given by the CARDINAL sets of witnesses – the victim ’s work colleagues and PERSON ’s work colleagues DATE and balanced them against the statement of the independent witness ORG as well as the findings of the technical expert report and concluded that PERSON had not breached any traffic rules and could not have avoided the accident .

The applicant challenged that decision but his complaint was rejected as ill - founded by the head prosecutor of ORG of ORG on DATE .

The applicant challenged the ORG decisions before ORG . He averred that , considering the severity of the crime , it was necessary to at least charge PERSON with a crime and thus allow the opportunity for more thorough technical tests to be conducted , to further examine the discrepancies between the witness statements and to enable him to take part in the proceedings as an injured party .

On DATE his complaint was allowed by ORG , which decided to send the case back to the prosecutor ’s office to reopen the criminal proceedings in order to fully respond to the applicant ’s allegations .

An appeal by the prosecutor on points of law ( recurs ) against the above judgment was allowed by ORG on DATE . ORG thoroughly examined the applicant ’s complaints and the available evidence and considered that they had been fully and clearly answered by the investigation and that no additional expert reports or other investigative steps were necessary in the case . With respect to the applicant ’s allegations that he could not take part in the proceedings , the court held that it had not been proved that the applicant ’s procedural rights had been breached ; for example , he had been able to propose witnesses .

On DATE the applicant authorised ORG to request a reopening of the case before ORG of ORG and ORG . This request was forwarded to the courts for examination .

On DATE the Timişoara ORG held that a reopening of the criminal proceedings in a case which had already been subject to the scrutiny of a court was only possible when new facts had been uncovered which had not been known to the investigating authorities at the relevant time . Since this was not the situation in the current case , the court declared the request inadmissible . An appeal by the applicant on points of law against that judgment was allowed on DATE by ORG . The court held that a request for reopening proceedings must first be examined and resolved by way of a reasoned decision by the prosecutor and only afterwards could it be brought before the courts .

The investigation was briefly re - opened following the above - mentioned court judgment . After new statements were taken from the applicant , PERSON and a new witness proposed by the applicant , on DATE the prosecutor decided again not to pursue criminal charges in the case owing to a lack of negligence on the part of GPE The new witness admitted that he had not in fact seen the accident but that the applicant had asked him to come and testify against GPE

The applicant ’s complaint against that decision was rejected with final effect by the Timişoara ORG on DATE . The court examined all investigative steps taken by the prosecutors in the case and decided that the applicant ’s complaint was ill - founded .

The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts .


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

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

NORP In a dispute between the applicant and the domestic pension authorities , on DATE the PERSON ORG ruled in his favour , ordering an increase of his pension based on the rise in the average wages in the country since his retirement . The court sat in camera .

On DATE the first - instance court amended the judgment at the applicant ’s request , indicating that it was enforceable immediately . In doing so , the court referred to the provision of LAW governing abridged procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The defendant pension authority appealed to ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) .

On DATE the first - instance court informed the applicant that an appeal had been lodged in his case . On DATE he wrote to ORG , requesting to be informed about the date of the hearing of his case . According to him , he received no response and no further information about the proceedings until DATE when he received ORG final decision , dated DATE , quashing the first - instance court ’s judgment .

It can be seen from the material before the ORG that the applicant ’s domestic case file contains copies of the ruling of ORG judge ( date illegible ) opening appeal proceedings in his case and a notification letter dated DATE from the court clerk informing him of the upcoming examination of his case in camera on DATE and stating that the judge ’s ruling and a copy of the appeal were enclosed with the letter . The Government alleged that the above documents had been sent to the applicant , while the applicant alleged that they had not . The file does not contain any postal documents or registers of sent correspondence showing that the above documents had been sent or delivered to the applicant .

On DATE ORG , in a final decision not amenable to appeal , quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment , dismissing the applicant ’s claim for a pension increase and holding that the domestic law did not require the pensions to be increased in case of rise in the average wages in the country following retirement . The court sat in camera .


TRADE UNION IN THE FACTORY "4TH NOVEMBER" v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

NORP The applicant is the trade union in the “ CARDINALth DATE ” factory in GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE the applicant union announced that its members would go on strike because of the lack of success of negotiations that had been pending with the employer for some time regarding payment of leave allowance ( регрес за годишен одмор ) for DATE , the signing of the employer ’s collective agreement , and increases in pay . As stated in the announcement , the strike was to begin at TIME on DATE at the workplace and would continue until the applicant union ’s demands were met . As stated in the decision to strike , the applicant union undertook to negotiate with the employer before and during the strike , in order to ensure that the workers’ demands were acceded to in a friendly manner . It was also stated that if an agreement was reached between the applicant union and the employer it would be regarded as a collective agreement of the employer .

On DATE the applicant union and the employer reached an agreement for a PERCENT pay rise and the payment of a CARDINAL - off bonus for production workers . According to the agreement , the strike action was suspended ( активностите на штрајкот се запираат ) and the negotiations were to continue after termination of the “ campaign ” ( apparently a production stage in the factory ) .

In the light of legislative amendments in DATE introducing gross salaries , on DATE the applicant union asked for the pay rise stipulated in the agreement to be incorporated in the workers’ gross salaries . The same request was made regarding travel and food allowances ( трошоци по основ на исхрана и превоз ) .

As established in the subsequent civil proceedings ( see below ) , the employer responded on DATE , saying that it had fulfilled the wage - related obligations set out in the agreement of CARDINAL DATE , and that the negotiations on the collective agreement would continue . It also offered PERCENT pay rise for production workers .

The applicant union and the employer then exchanged letters in which they stated their positions regarding the contentious issues . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the employer set out CARDINAL proposals concerning pay increases , and indicated that the negotiations regarding the collective agreement would continue .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant union made a final request ( a PERCENT salary increase for production workers and incorporation of the food allowance in the gross salary ) and asked the employer to state its position by TIME , under the threat of resorting to other statutory measures .

In another letter dispatched DATE by registered mail ( which the employer received on DATE ) the applicant union informed the employer :

“ ... since you refuse to settle the wage dispute , we hereby inform you that the strike action will resume at TIME on DATE in the factory . We emphasise that we are ready to negotiate both now and during the strike in order to find a solution ( that is acceptable for both parties ) ... ”

By a letter dated DATE the employer formulated CARDINAL proposals regarding a pay rise for production and/or all workers and travel and food allowances , and requested that the applicant union reply by DATE . The employer stated that its proposals corresponded to its financial capacity at the time . By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant union refused the employer ’s offer but expressed its willingness to continue negotiating . In reply , the employer informed the applicant union that by going on strike on CARDINAL DATE it had violated the provisional agreement of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date the employer brought a civil action against the applicant union , asking the courts to declare the strike announced on DATE unlawful .

In a judgment of DATE ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) allowed the employer ’s action and declared the strike announced on DATE unlawful . The court held that the strike had not been announced within the time - limits specified in LAW for ORG ( “ the sector collective agreement ” ) , which was binding on the applicant union . Since the applicant union , by submissions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , had made new requests that had not been included in the agreement of CARDINAL DATE , the court found that the applicant union had gone on strike in contravention of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ the LAW ” , see paragraph DATE below ) according to which a strike could not begin before any out - of - court settlement proceedings had been brought to an end .

On DATE ORG allowed an appeal by the applicant union and set aside the lower court ’s judgment . It instructed the first - instance court to establish whether the employer had signed the sector collective agreement , which in the court ’s opinion was the determining factor as to the applicability of that collective agreement to the dispute between the parties . The lower court was also instructed to establish whether at the material time the negotiations were still pending , and if so whether , in the light of its subsequent requests , the applicant union had been obliged to announce the strike of DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the employer ’s action . Relying on section CARDINAL of the LAW , it held that the applicant union had gone on strike on the basis of its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had not been set aside ( вон сила ) . With that decision , the applicant union had informed the employer about the reasons for the strike and the place and time of the strike . The agreement reached between the parties on DATE had been provisional and had concerned only part of the applicant union ’s demands ( concerning a pay rise for production workers ) . The employer had started implementing the agreement of CARDINAL DATE up to the point when the legislative amendments introducing gross salaries entered into force in DATE . In view of the applicant union ’s requests post - dating the agreement , the court concluded that negotiations between the parties had been pending and that the applicant union had not been required to announce the strike of DATE . The court also found that the strike could not be regarded as a new strike , but was rather a continuation of the strike announced on DATE . That negotiations were ongoing was supported by the fact that after the parties had reached the agreement of CARDINAL DATE both strikers and non - strikers were regularly at work and production had continued ( редовно оделе на работа , редовно се одвивал работниот процес ) . The court also established that the employer was at the time neither a member of ORG ( Здружение на работодавачи ) nor a signatory to the sector collective agreement ( the latter accordingly was not binding on the employer at the time ) . In such circumstances , the court ruled that the strike had been in compliance with the LAW , pursuant to which the right to strike could not be restricted because of the requirement for mediation .

On an appeal by the employer , on DATE ORG overturned the first - instance court ’s judgment and declared the strike announced on DATE unlawful . The court held that :

“ The court considers that after the agreement ( of DATE ) had been concluded and the [ employer ] had satisfied part of [ the applicant ’s ] requests , negotiations were still pending , which is not disputed between the parties . In view of the above - cited provision ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , the requirement for mediation can not restrict the right to strike if such a requirement is specified by this law or before the end of any out - of - court settlement proceedings agreed upon by the parties .

This court considers that the strike of CARDINAL DATE is unlawful because mediation and negotiations ... are still pending . ( The applicant union ) submitted new requests that had not been specified in the agreement [ of CARDINAL DATE ] ... [ The applicant union ] , without giving any reply , refused the new proposals made [ by the employer ] and continued the strike , despite the employer ’s willingness to fulfil the requests that were not part of the agreement . Instead of considering the CARDINAL proposals made by the employer and providing an explanation for refusing each of them , [ the applicant union ] unilaterally informed the employer on DATE that the strike would continue . This means that while the negotiations were pending it went unilaterally into a new strike , in contravention of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

In view of the foregoing , the court allows [ the employer ’s ] appeal ... and prohibits ( забрани ) the [ the applicant union ’s ] strike announced on DATE as contrary to LAW , all the more so since the negotiating team of [ the applicant union ] suggested to [ the employer ] , with the notification of CARDINAL DATE , that negotiations should continue . ”

On DATE the employer claimed compensation for pecuniary loss allegedly sustained as a result of the strike by the applicant union which had lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The applicant union denied that the employer had sustained any damage , alleging that workers who had gone on strike had been replaced . In such circumstances , there had been no adverse effects and “ the campaign had ended successfully ” .

In the observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , the Government informed that on CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court allowed the employer ’s claim and ordered the applicant union , under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to pay MONEY ( ORG ) with interest in respect of “ pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful strike held DATE and DATE . ” The court relied on an expert report , according to which there had been “ CARDINAL campaigns for the production of raw sugar ” during the strike , and the employer had sustained damage in view of increased energy costs . In the absence of an appeal by the applicant union , this judgment became final on DATE .

The applicant union submitted a list of CARDINAL employees who were members of the applicant union and who had been dismissed from work owing to their participation in the strike . In this connection , it submitted court judgments in which the dismissal of an employee had been confirmed at the first and second levels of jurisdiction . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the dismissal of CARDINAL of the employees named in that list ( GPE and GPE ) . The parties did not submit any further information in this respect .

The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :

The rights of employees and their status are regulated by law and collective agreements .

The right to strike is guaranteed . The law may restrict the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike in the armed forces , the police and administrative bodies . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The employer and the employee can decide that an individual or collective labour dispute is settled by a conciliation council ( мировен совет ) composed of CARDINAL members , of which CARDINAL member is appointed by the employer and CARDINAL by the employee and they jointly appoint the remaining member ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG collective agreement may specify that collective labour disputes are settled by arbitration .

( CARDINAL ) The collective agreement specifies the composition , procedure and other relevant issues for the arbitration process .

( CARDINAL ) If the employer and the employee agree that a dispute is to be settled by arbitration , the judgment of the arbitration is final and binding for both parties .

( CARDINAL ) The judgment of the arbitration is not subject to judicial review .

A collective agreement can be general for the whole ORG , specific for a particular ( economic ) sector , or individual , for a particular employer .

( CARDINAL ) At the ORG level there are :

CARDINAL ) business general collective agreements and

CARDINAL ) public - sector general collective agreements .

( CARDINAL ) ORG general collective agreement is directly applicable and is binding on employers who are members of the union of employers , signatories to the collective agreement , or who have joined that union subsequently .

( CARDINAL ) A sector collective agreement is directly applicable and is binding on employers who are members of the union of employers , signatories to the collective agreement , or who have joined that union subsequently .

( CARDINAL ) ORG collective agreement is binding on all persons who have entered into it and on all who , at the relevant time , were or have subsequently become members of the unions which had entered into the collective agreement .

( CARDINAL ) A collective agreement is also binding on all persons who have entered into it and on all who have subsequently become members of the unions which had signed up to it ...

Rights and obligations during strikes

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) ORG trade union and its federations may announce and go on strike in order to protect the economic and social rights of their members , in accordance with the law .

( CARDINAL ) The employer or the ORG federation shall be notified in writing about the strike ...

( CARDINAL ) The strike can not begin before negotiations ( постапка за помирување ) have ended , as provided for by law . The requirement for negotiations can not restrict the right to strike if such a requirement is specified by law or before [ the end of ] any out - of - court settlement proceedings agreed upon by the parties ...

( CARDINAL ) Any notice announcing a strike must contain information about the reasons for the strike and the place and the time of the strike .

( CARDINAL ) The strike must be organised in a manner that will not impair or disturb the work routine of workers not participating in the strike and [ in a manner ] that will not restrict access to the workplace by workers and persons in authority . ”

( CARDINAL ) The employer and the association of employers may ask the competent court to declare unlawful a strike that has been organised contrary to the statutory provisions .

( CARDINAL ) NORP The employer can seek compensation for damage sustained by a strike organised contrary to the law .

The Government submitted copy of the general business collective agreement of DATE ( together with an accord extending its validity until DATE , ORG no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The relevant provisions of the DATE general business collective agreement ( ORG no . MONEY ) were as follows :

Disputes that can not be settled through negotiations can be settled by means of mediation or arbitration .

Mediation is a process in which an independent third person appointed by the parties to the dispute assists them in settling the dispute .

Arbitration is dispute resolution by a third person who is appointed by the parties to the dispute and who resolves the dispute by making a decision .

Individual and collective disputes can be settled out of court or by a special conciliation council .

An out - of - court settlement is set in motion by a proposal from any party to the dispute , which is to be submitted DATE after the dispute ; in the proposal the appellant must describe the nature of the dispute .

The other party is required to reply within DATE of receiving the proposal .

Each party to the dispute appoints CARDINAL member of the conciliation council . They jointly appoint the third member of the conciliation council from among the candidates on the list of mediators ...

Parties are required to complete the out - of - court settlement proceedings within DATE of the submission of the proposal for an out - of - court settlement ...

In a collective labour dispute any party to the dispute can seek settlement by means of arbitration up to DATE after the beginning of the dispute or after termination of the out - of - court settlement proceedings .

CARDINAL or more arbiters can be included in the arbitration .

Parties to the disputes jointly appoint the arbiter(s ) from the list of arbiters ...

The decision of the arbiter is final and binding on the parties concerned .

Arbitration proceedings are to be completed within DATE . ”

The Government also provided a copy of the DATE general business collective agreement ( ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which contained identical rules on out - of - court settlement of labour disputes to those in the DATE collective agreement .

On the basis of an application by ORG ( GPE на синдикати ) , on DATE ORG rejected as unconstitutional the part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW which provides that a strike can not begin before negotiations have ended , as provided for by law and “ a decision of the Minister for Labour ( и акт на GPE надлежен за работите од областа на трудот ) ” . Relying on international materials and the constitutional provisions cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , ORG stated that :

“ The court considers that the disputed provision introduced , in principle , a requirement of prior exhaustion of out - of - court settlement proceedings before resorting to a strike , as a means of protection of economic and social rights ...

According to the court ... strikes and mediation in labour - related matters are closely linked , given the fact that friendly settlement of labour disputes ( мирно решавање на работните спорови ) can have , in certain cases , a preventive effect in that they avoid strikes being held , and if a strike has already begun it is a means to achieve an out - of - court settlement of a particular dispute . The court therefore considers that it is ... decisive that both issues ( strike and mediation ) concern labour issues , which , as provided for in LAW , are to be regulated by law and collective agreements . They can not be regulated by a decision of the Minister ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively , the Contracting Parties undertake :

to promote joint consultation between workers and employers ;

to promote , where necessary and appropriate , machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or ORG organisations and workers’ organisations , with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements ;

to promote the establishment and use of appropriate machinery for conciliation and voluntary arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes ; and recognise :

the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest , including the right to strike , subject to obligations that might arise out of collective agreements previously entered into . ”

The GPE Parties to the present LAW undertake to ensure ...

( d ) the right to strike , provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country . ”

Relevant provisions of this report read as follows :

Paragraph CARDINAL - Collective action

Procedural requirements pertaining to collective action

The trade union which has called the strike must notify the employer against whom it is directed , specifying the reasons for the strike , the place where it is to be held , and the date and time of the strike ’s commencement .

A strike can not take place before the completion of the conciliation / mediation procedures .

The ORG asks whether there are any other procedural requirements that must be fulfilled before a lawful strike can take place , such as ballot requirements .

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested the ORG defers its conclusion . ”

“ Concerning procedural requirements that must be fulfilled before a lawful strike can take place , the ORG notes that no other requirements than the ones mentioned in the previous conclusion are to be fulfilled .

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested , the ORG concludes that the situation in “ the former GPE ” is in conformity with LAW . ”


Violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens

Following their respective marriages , the applicants had to take their husbands’ surnames pursuant to LAW . On various dates , they initiated proceedings before the first instance courts seeking permission to use only their maiden names . Their requests were rejected on the ground that according to LAW , married women had to bear their husbands’ name throughout their marriage and were not permitted to use their maiden name alone . The details of the applications appear in the attached table .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE . Currently , he is detained at FAC .

It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his accomplices .

As the investigation against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants proceeded , the applicant was interrogated on numerous occasions as a suspect in connection with various violent crimes committed in many different villages . The investigation resulted in a case file of CARDINAL large boxes . According to the material collected , the applicant and his co - defendants had committed a series of burglaries against lonely elderly people in various parts of the country . They had tied up the victims and beaten them or threatened them until they disclosed where their valuables were hidden and then left them tied up alone in their houses . Some of the victims had died soon after the assaults .

The bill of indictment submitted on DATE was CARDINAL pages long , concerned CARDINAL defendants , and proposed the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL forensic medical experts . The applicant was indicted on CARDINAL counts of homicide , CARDINAL counts of robbery , CARDINAL counts of infringement of personal liberty , CARDINAL counts of assault causing grievous bodily harm , CARDINAL counts of trespass and CARDINAL counts of theft or attempted theft .

After CARDINAL hearings held from DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder , robbery and several other offences , in a CARDINAL - long judgment . The applicant was , as a multiple recidivist , sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole , that is , whole life sentence ( tényleges életfogytiglan ) .

On appeal , ORG held a preparatory meeting on DATE and a hearing on DATE . It quashed the first - instance judgment on DATE and remitted the case to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings before ORG , an amended bill of indictment was preferred on DATE and CARDINAL hearings were held DATE and DATE . Several forensic medical and graphology experts were appointed in order to verify the defence of a co - defendant to the effect that he could not have taken part in the commission of CARDINAL of the crimes he was charged with since he had undergone an operation on his knee DATE under a false name – and was not able to walk . Although this issue was irrelevant for the applicant , it appeared to be crucial for the determination of the charges against his co - defendant .

On DATE ORG again convicted the applicant . The applicant submitted that the judge hearing his case this time used to be the trainee of the judge who had tried his case in the first proceedings before ORG .

ORG judgment was CARDINAL pages long and covered CARDINAL cases of crimes committed by the CARDINAL defendants . The applicant , as well as the above - mentioned co - defendant , was again sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole .

On appeal , ORG held hearings on DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE . In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG re - characterised the offences of which the applicant had been convicted but upheld his sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole . In order to reflect differences between the attitude of the applicant during the trial and that of the above - mentioned co - defendant ( who contributed to the establishment of the facts and expressed remorse ) and to make their punishments respectively proportionate , the co - defendant ’s sentence was mitigated : he was no longer excluded from eligibility for parole .

On DATE ORG upheld this sentence .

The applicant submitted that his cell at FAC , the dimensions of which are CARDINAL by QUANTITY , accommodates another inmate and the toilet is adjacent to his bed and table .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of CARDINAL minor girls .

On DATE the FAC ( Sąd Rejonowy ) decided to detain him on remand . The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the aforementioned offences . It attached particular importance to the likelihood that a severe sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on him and to the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings . The applicant ’s appeal , lodged against the detention order , was dismissed by the second - instance court .

The applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended by the Wrocław - Śródmieście District Court on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE , by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , as well as by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May and on DATE .

The courts justified their decisions by the particularly high risk of the applicant ’s absconding abroad or otherwise obstructing the course of the proceedings and by the severity of the anticipated penalty . They also had regard to the nature of the offences with which he had been charged and considered that , given the applicant ’s personality , a release on bail would not sufficiently secure the proper course of the proceedings .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person was lodged with PERSON ( Sąd Rejonowy ) . The prosecutor requested the court to hear CARDINAL witnesses .

The trial started on DATE . Subsequently , the trial court held CARDINAL hearings in DATE , QUANTITY hearings in DATE and CARDINAL hearings in DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of CARDINAL minor girls . The court determined that the applicant had committed those offences in various ways . He had sexual intercourse with some of the victims and he sexually abused the others in different ways . He was also found guilty of aiding sexual abuse and of serving alcohol to minors . The first - instance court sentenced the applicant to a cumulative penalty of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE , ORG extended the applicant ’s detention . His detention was later prolonged by the same court ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s appeals against these CARDINAL decisions were dismissed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , by ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the same court granted further extensions of the applicant ’s detention .

The courts relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant , given that he had been sentenced at firstinstance to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . They considered that there was therefore a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings by absconding . In establishing the existence of this risk they referred to the applicant ’s knowledge of foreign languages and to the fact that he had previously travelled abroad . They also stressed the particularly drastic nature of the offences in question .

The applicant and the prosecutor lodged appeals against the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE ORG altered the judgment in part and increased the applicant ’s cumulative sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal ( kasacja ) with ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) . He later withdrew his cassation appeal .


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

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently being detained in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder . On DATE ORG of GPE authorised his pre - trial detention .

Subsequently the applicant ’s detention was extended on a number of occasions in the course of the investigation and trial in view of the gravity of the charges against him and the risks of his absconding , seeking to influence witnesses and reoffending .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment in a correctional colony . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but decreased the sentence by DATE .

During the admission process at remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE the applicant told the medical staff that he had hypertension . The diagnosis was confirmed by a prison doctor , who prescribed him hypotensive medication and regular monitoring of his blood pressure .

NORP In DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG no . CARDINAL in GPE ( “ the prison hospital ” ) for DATE of inpatient treatment for his hypertension . A chest X - ray showed that he had a mild case of pneumonia and he was also diagnosed with another chronic condition . In the hospital the applicant received the full range of treatments for his conditions .

NORP In DATE the applicant had a hypertensive crisis . DATE his lawyer complained to the prison authorities of inadequate medical care .

A medical examination in DATE showed that the applicant had recovered from pneumonia and that there were positive developments with his hypertension .

In DATE and DATE the applicant was moved between various detention facilities and had routine medical checkups .

NORP In DATE he was sent to a minimum security settlement colony . The applicant and other inmates performed repairs to a nearby children ’s health camp . The applicant complained only of fatigue and headache to medical staff during that period .

According to the applicant , in DATE he started experiencing pain in the chest , pelvic area and testicles . His ability to walk was hindered by severe pain . He took painkillers sent by his relatives . The detention authorities ignored his complaints and on several occasions confiscated the painkillers .

In written submissions , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON , detainees who worked with the applicant in the children ’s camp from DATE , confirmed the above statements . They submitted that the applicant had been seriously ill , had been barely able to walk and had often complained about severe pain . No proper medical examination or treatment had been arranged despite the applicant ’s requests for inpatient treatment . Inmates had injected the applicant with painkillers supplied by his relatives .

On DATE the applicant asked the head of the detention facility to authorise a medical examination and treatment outside the facility owing to a serious spine and leg condition that had worried him since DATE . He stated that over DATE he had received pain relief medication provided by his relatives , but that his condition had not got better .

Following the applicant ’s complaint , he was sent to a civilian clinic in GPE for a magnetic resonance imaging scan ( MRI ) . An examination carried out on DATE , DATE after his admission , revealed a prostate tumour and affection of the bone . A consultation by an oncologist was prescribed .

On DATE the applicant complained about the quality of his treatment to ORG in GPE . The complaint was forwarded to the applicant ’s ward but was dismissed as ill - founded on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE , where he was diagnosed with prostate cancer with metastasis to the pelvic bone . According to his medical records , he suffered mild to intense pain .

DATE a medical panel certified the applicant as having a second - degree disability .

DATE and DATE the applicant was examined and treated in the prison hospital . While tests performed in the hospital did not disclose any cancer , hospital officials acted on the diagnosis of CARDINAL DATE and prescribed drug treatment for prostate cancer .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by an oncologist , who recorded his cancer treatment and ordered tests .

In DATE the applicant spent DATE in the prison hospital .

DATE he was seen by doctors and was prescribed further treatment for cancer . The medical staff apparently complied fully with that prescription .

On DATE a medical panel concluded that the applicant ’s state of health warranted his early release on medical grounds . DATE the NORP ORG of the Krasnoyarsk Region dismissed an application for early release , finding that the applicant was receiving the required treatment in detention . On DATE ORG quashed the decision on procedural grounds and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The parties did not inform ORG outcome of those proceedings . However , given the further developments , it appears that the applicant remained in detention .

On DATE the applicant was certified as having a first - degree disability .

In DATE he was admitted to the prison hospital for a medical examination and treatment . There are no details regarding his subsequent treatment .

The applicant was detained in the remand prison DATE and DATE , save for short periods in the prison hospital . The applicant complained of the poor conditions of his detention , including overcrowding . The Government disagreed .


Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in NORP . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

NORP The applicant and his wife got married in DATE and subsequently had CARDINAL sons . In DATE the applicant ’s wife moved to GPE to pursue doctoral studies and , with the applicant ’s consent , she took the children with her . DATE the applicant ’s wife initiated divorce proceedings before the NORP courts .

On DATE the Vilnius City ORG granted the divorce . The court found that the marriage had broken down due to the applicant ’s fault – it was established that he had regularly gambled , using his wife ’s and her relatives’ money for that purpose .

During the court proceedings , the applicant agreed that the custody of the CARDINAL children be awarded to his ex - wife . He subsequently changed his position , first requesting custody of the older son and later of the both children . However , the court held that the interests of the children were best served by awarding custody to their mother . It found that the children were very attached to their mother and to each other , and that the applicant had not maintained regular contact with them since their move to GPE .

The applicant was ordered to pay maintenance to the CARDINAL children . The court held that the amount of maintenance had to be calculated according to NORP law and found this amount to be MONEY ( ORG ) per month for each child . The court then noted that the applicant did not have sufficient income to provide this amount : during the court proceedings the applicant himself stated that he was only able to afford CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , approximately ORG CARDINAL ) per month for each child . However , the court also noted that the applicant owned an apartment in GPE , the market value of which was estimated to be LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) . Stressing that the interests of children took priority over the interests of their parents , the court awarded the apartment as a form of maintenance jointly to the CARDINAL children .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court with certain amendments . The court held that the maintenance needs of the children had to be determined in accordance with NORP ( and not NORP ) law . The court re - evaluated the amount of maintenance on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicant ’s ex - wife and accepted her claim that ORG ( FAC ) per month for each child would be appropriate . The court then estimated that the applicant ’s apartment , sold at its market price ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , could provide each child with approximately LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per month until they turned DATE . It also concluded that the applicant ’s ex - wife nonetheless had to bear a significantly larger financial burden in the upbringing of their children . Therefore , the court held that awarding the applicant ’s apartment for the maintenance of the children was proportionate and justified .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG arguing that the decision to award his apartment as a form of maintenance was unjustified . However , on DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal on the ground that it raised no important legal questions . The applicant then lodged a new cassation appeal , but on DATE ORG refused to examine it ( on the same grounds ) .

DATE Republic of Lithuania provides that parents have the obligation to support their children until they come of age .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides that the legal regulation of family relationships shall be based on , inter alia , the priority of protecting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Parents shall be obliged to maintain their children until their majority . The procedure and form of maintenance shall be determined by the mutual agreement of the parents .

NORP The amount of maintenance must be commensurate with the needs of the children and the financial situation of their parents ; it must ensure the conditions necessary for the children ’s development .

Both parents must provide maintenance to their children until their majority in accordance with their financial situation . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The court may issue a maintenance order obliging the parents ( CARDINAL of the parents ) who fail in their duty to maintain their children to provide maintenance to their children in the following ways :

CARDINAL ) regular DATE payments :

CARDINAL ) a defined lump sum ;

CARDINAL ) award of a particular property . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that when making a maintenance order in respect of CARDINAL or more children , the court shall determine an amount sufficient to meet at least the minimal needs of all the children .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that judgments can not be enforced against property which is essential for the debtor ’s subsistence , occupation or studies .

On DATE the ORG of ORG issued decision no . CARDINAL “ On the application in the case - law of laws regulating GPE duty to financially maintain their children before the age of majority ” , which was aimed at harmonising the case - law of the lower courts . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Parents’ financial situation shall be determined taking into account all types of income : wages ; other employment - related income ; royalties ; pensions ; scholarships and social benefits ; income from commercial and economic activity ( rent , dividends and others ) ; funds in banks and other credit institutions ; movable ( cars , valuable portable items , jewellery ) and immovable ( houses , flats , other buildings , land , forests , and so forth ) property ; securities ( equities , bonds ) ; legal entities ( sole proprietorships , and so on ) and their property . In determining the financial situation of parents , other statutory dependants are also to be taken into account .

When determining the proportionality between the needs of the child and the GPE financial situation , the court should take into consideration the fact that the amount of maintenance must be commensurate with the reasonable needs of the child and the GPE financial situation ( LAW ) ...

Maintenance must also be imposed on a father ( or mother ) who receives only the minimum wage , a ORG pension or other minimum income . The GPE severe financial situation is an important criterion for calculating the amount of maintenance but it can not be grounds for exempting the father ( or mother ) from the obligation to provide maintenance for their children ...

NORP The court may award maintenance in the following forms : regular DATE payments ; a defined sum of money ; an award of a particular property to a child ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The form of maintenance chosen must allow the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the child , taking into account the interests of the child and the financial situation of the parents . The court may choose on its own initiative the form of maintenance which satisfies the child ’s best interests ( LAW ) .

The selection criteria for the form of maintenance are the following : the child ’s needs , age and health status ; the GPE financial situation ; the structure of the GPE property ; their income level and income periodicity ; and the father ’s ( and mother ’s ) ability to properly manage the assets and other aspects relating to property management .

In selecting the form of maintenance , the court must take into account the fact that maintenance by its nature has the purpose of satisfying the everyday needs of children before their majority : the child ’s food , clothing , housing , education , health and development .

Maintenance in the form of periodic payments paid DATE guarantees a fixed amount for the child ’s maintenance DATE . Such a form of maintenance should be applied where the child ’s father ( or mother ) has a permanent income ( earnings , pensions , allowances , and so forth ) .

A defined sum of money as maintenance may be determined where this is allowed by the available funds of the child ’s father ( or mother ) who is liable for maintenance . The full amount of maintenance in a specific , CARDINAL - off payment of money shall be determined by multiplying the amount of maintenance per month by DATE until the child ’s majority .

Maintenance in the form of awarding ownership of the father ’s ( or mother ’s ) specific property to a child may be applied where the father ( or mother ) has a property and by using it or realising [ its value ] , the income for the child ’s maintenance may be received or the child ’s needs may be met . A court deciding to award maintenance in this form must take into account the type of the property to be awarded , the father ’s ( or mother ’s ) ability to manage the property , future costs for the property ’s maintenance , liquidity of the property , and so forth . The value of the property shall be determined on the basis of the value determined by market prices at the time the decision is rendered ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW ) ... ”

NORP In case no . QUANTITY of DATE , ORG held as follows :

“ The purpose of maintenance is to fulfil the child ’s DATE needs , and it is constantly necessary , DATE , and not some time in the future when the parents will be able or willing to provide for those needs . It is therefore important to secure stability of maintenance ... The parent who lives with the minor child also assumes the DATE care of the child which is normally not compensated for by awarding maintenance [ from the other parent ] . Meanwhile both parents are responsible for ensuring a safe environment and proper conditions for the child to grow and develop , for providing support in the child ’s education and realisation of his or her talents and interests . ORG has established in its case - law that inadequate compliance or non - compliance with parental duties can be justified only in exceptional circumstances which are outside the GPE control ; therefore , parents ought to evaluate their financial situation and readiness to take care of a child in advance ; in failing to evaluate their readiness to raise a child , develop his personality and provide suitable conditions for his development , parents consciously assume an increased social risk and its consequences ( ruling of ORG in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) . Thus , when assessing the party ’s financial status , the court evaluates not only his or her existing possessions and income , but also the action that he or she has taken to ensure income commensurate with his or her age and professional capabilities , which could be used to provide maintenance for his or her children ... ”


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

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

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a number of criminal offences .

On DATE ORG of GPE remanded him in custody : this detention was further extended on a number of occasions .

On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . In the operative part of its judgment the court also ruled that the applicant ’s pre - trial detention should be continued as a preventive measure pending the entry of that judgment into force . It further noted that the judgment could be challenged on appeal within DATE of the date of its pronouncement .

On DATE the above judgement was quashed on appeal , and the case was remitted to the investigative authorities for additional investigation .

No information was submitted by the parties as to the further course of the proceedings .

On an unspecified date DATE the applicant was granted an amnesty and released .

On DATE the applicant was escorted from the ORG trial ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) to ORG , GPE , for a hearing regarding the lawfulness of his detention . The hearing lasted TIME and was further adjourned until DATE .

After the closure of the hearing , the applicant , his co - accused and some others attending the hearing remained in the courtroom demanding that the judge rule that the applicant should be released immediately . TIME , at TIME , officers of the “ Gryfon ” ( police special unit ensuring legal order on the court LOC ) arrived in the courtroom , having been summoned by the judge . CARDINAL officers split up into CARDINAL groups : the first group held the applicant stretched out and started beating him with handcuffs and truncheons ; the second group formed a human chain so that others in the room would not be able to see what was going on in the defendant ’s cage . As a result , the applicant sustained serious bodily injuries , including several wounds to his head . Somebody called an ambulance but a chief officer prevented the applicant from being taken to hospital and he was transferred back to the GPE . No medical assistance was provided in the GPE until TIME , when following pressure from the media the applicant was transferred to ORG ( “ the Hospital ” ) and received medical treatment .

Dissatisfied with the adjournment of the hearing , the applicant , his co - accused and several others present demanded the applicant ’s immediate release and refused to comply with the escorting ORG request to leave the courtroom . The presiding judge called the police special unit to ensure order on the LOC . The applicant continued to resist police officers and was therefore forcefully escorted out of the courtroom . As a result , he sustained bodily injuries . Upon return to the GPE , the applicant was examined at the medical unit and was then transferred to the Hospital , where he was provided with the requisite medical assistance .

On DATE PERSON notified the police of the applicant ’s ill - treatment in the courtroom by unidentified police officers . On DATE , the relevant information was entered in the “ FAC of pre - trial investigations ” and criminal proceedings were commenced on suspicion of excess of powers by “ Gryfon ” officers . PERSON was questioned and the courtroom was examined by the police . According to the police report , dark red drops which looked like blood were found on the floor next to the hearing room and in the defendant ’s cage . According to PERSON , she arrived to the courtroom once she became aware that a “ Gryfon ” officer had hit the applicant on the head with a rubber truncheon . Upon arrival , she saw that there was blood all over the courtroom .

On DATE ORG took over the proceedings .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON was questioned as a witness . She stated that CARDINAL “ Gryfon ” officers , equipped with handcuffs and truncheons , had entered the courtroom after the hearing was over . They had formed a human chain and separated the applicant from the other people in the room . A “ Gryfon ” officer then went into the defendant ’s metal cage and started pulling the applicant by the arm . TIME there was blood on the applicant ’s face . PERSON did not see who injured the applicant or how it happened , but noted that the latter did not resist the officers . At the same time , she saw “ GPE ” officers twisting the applicant ’s hands forcefully while trying to handcuff him .

On DATE Mrs N. and Mr PERSON were questioned as witnesses . PERSON ORG stated that she was not present at the hearing but was told by PERSON that the conflict arose because of the applicant ’s refusal to leave the courtroom . Mr PERSON , who had been present at the hearing when “ GPE ” arrived , stated that the applicant was not kicked or punched . Instead , he saw some officers , standing outside the metal cage , twisting the applicant ’s arms . As a result , the applicant hit his head on the metal cage and fell down . Then CARDINAL officers entered the cage and dragged the applicant out of the courtroom . According to Mr PERSON , the officers did not identify themselves when they arrived and did not ask anybody to leave the LOC .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a victim . According to him , “ Gryfon ” officers appeared in the courtroom wearing bulletproof vests and neck and face coverings which rendered their identification impossible . CARDINAL of them , accompanied by an officer from the escorting unit , approached the applicant from the opposite side of the cage , pulled the applicant ’s hands forward and twisted his arms . “ Gryfon ” officers then entered the cage and started beating him in the face with truncheons and dragging him in different directions . As a result , the applicant hit his face on the cage bars . He was also kicked in the head by the “ Gryfon ” chief officer . Once the applicant started bleeding , he was stretched out on the floor , handcuffed and dragged out of the courtroom . On the way down , on the third floor , his head was intentionally banged against a metal case and he lost consciousness . According to the applicant , it was ORG of GPE that had ordered “ Gryfon ” to kill him .

On DATE , a forensic medical examination of the applicant was ordered .

On DATE a forensic medical examination report was issued . On the basis of the documents provided by the investigator , the expert stated that the applicant had sustained a contused head wound and numerous abrasions on the face and the left hand . The expert opined that those injuries had been caused by blunt objects ; as to their date , it could not be excluded that they had been inflicted on DATE . The injuries were classified as minor . The expert further found no clinical evidence that the applicant had sustained concussion . He noted in this respect that no pathology was evident from the description of the applicant ’s neurological state during his first and subsequent medical examinations . Likewise , there was no description of any radial nerve disorder in the file . The expert observed that some changes revealed during the head and spine X - ray examination indicated the progress of the applicant ’s chronic diseases , either of which , taken separately or together with others , could present neurological signs similar to those which would appear with concussion .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings . The relevant resolution referred to the results of the above forensic medical examination and gave details of the testimonies of the applicant and those of Mr PERSON , PERSON and “ Gryfon ” officers , questioned as witnesses . According to the “ Gryfon ” officers , they had had no means of restraint during the operation and had used no force on the applicant . They stated that the applicant ’s injuries could have been self - inflicted when he resisted being escorted from the court . The resolution further referred to the provisions of LAW , according to which abuse of powers was criminally punishable only if the damage caused was in money terms CARDINAL times greater than the citizen ’s tax - exempt minimum income . It noted that the case file contained no evidence that the applicant had sustained such damage . The prosecutor finally concluded that no proof of abuse of powers by “ Gryfon ” officers was obtained during the investigation . It was noted that the resolution could be challenged within DATE of the date of its receipt . The resolution has not been appealed against by PERSON or the applicant .

On unspecified dates PERSON lodged a number of complaints with different ORG authorities , including MPs , about the events of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG , having completed their internal inquiry in respect of some of PERSON complaints , found no misconduct by “ GPE ” officers . According to the internal inquiry report , on CARDINAL DATE the police special unit arrived at the courtroom as PERSON and others attending the hearing were refusing to leave ; they impeded the applicant ’s being escorted out of the court LOC . The officers identified themselves and demanded that the public cease offering resistance and leave the LOC . As they did not comply , some of the “ Gryfon ” officers and the escorting officers formed a human chain and pushed the members of the public back , allowing other officers to take the applicant out of the courtroom . The applicant behaved inappropriately , uttering obscenities and hanging on to the metal bars of the cage . As a result , he injured his arm . According to the report , no force or special means of restraint was used .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the GPE . On admission he underwent a medical examination , including an NORP - ray , and his medical file was studied . He was diagnosed with a number of chronic conditions , for which he received outpatient treatment . The applicant was also put on the list for regular medical check - ups .

According to the ORG , during his stay in the GPE the applicant presented himself to the medical unit on a number of occasions and was examined by the GPE medical staff and , where necessary , by specialists from ORG health - care institutions .

On an unspecified date the applicant consulted the GPE dentist and was diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and edentulous upper arch . Symptomatic in - patient treatment and consultation of a general practitioner were recommended .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a maxillofacial surgeon and cardiologist from ORG . He was diagnosed with a number of chronic conditions , had some of his teeth extracted , and was prescribed appropriate treatment . He was also advised to undergo an electrocardiogram .

On DATE the electrocardiogram was done ; it revealed no particular problems .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the GPE general practitioner and expressed no particular complaints as to his state of health . No serious pathology requiring treatment was revealed . It was recommended that he undergo a preventive medical examination and have some tests .

On DATE blood and urine tests were carried out : they revealed no pathology . A repeated blood sugar test was recommended .

On DATE , after his return from the court hearing , the applicant was examined at the GPE medical unit and was diagnosed with bruises on his forearms and head , periorbital haematomas of both eyes , and CARDINAL stab wounds to the forehead . The applicant was then referred to the Hospital .

At the ORG , the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and a neurosurgeon . He underwent an electrocardiogram and head PERSON and was diagnosed with a contused head wound , numerous bruises , abrasions on the head and left hand , and a number of other conditions he had previously been diagnosed with . Having received first aid for the injuries he had sustained , the applicant was escorted back to his cell as , according to ORG physician , his state of health did not require in - patient treatment at the ORG or the GPE medical unit .

On DATE the stitches on the applicant ’s head were removed with no complications .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist of the GPE medical unit and was diagnosed with cephalic syndrome resulting from concussion and post - traumatic radial nerve neuropathy . Outpatient treatment was prescribed .

On DATE the applicant was re - examined by the neuropathologist . The previous diagnosis was confirmed and it was recommended , inter alia , that he undergo a brain and spine MRI .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an endocrinologist and underwent a fasting blood sugar test . No particular problems were revealed .

On DATE the GPE authorities asked ORG for an MRI for the applicant and for the GPE to be informed of the date of the examination .

On DATE the applicant underwent MRI scans of the brain and spine .

According to a ORG certificate of DATE , the applicant ’s state of health was satisfactory . He was under constant supervision by the GPE medical staff and did not require in - patient treatment in the GPE medical unit or elsewhere .

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force since DATE ) :

Article CARDINAL

Opening of pre - trial investigation

“ CARDINAL . An investigator or a prosecutor shall immediately , but not later than TIME after submission of an allegation or notification that a criminal offence has been committed , or having discovered themselves from any source indications that a criminal offence has been committed , be required to enter such information in ORG of pre - trial investigations and shall open an investigation ...

NORP The pre - trial investigation shall begin as soon as data have been entered in FAC of pre - trial investigations ... ”

Article CARDINAL

Termination of criminal proceedings

“ ... CARDINAL . An investigator or a prosecutor may issue a decision to terminate criminal proceedings , which is amenable to appeal in accordance with the procedure established by this Code .

A copy of the investigator ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings shall be sent to the complainant , the victim , and the prosecutor . The prosecutor has the right to quash the decision on the grounds of its unlawfulness or lack of substantiation within DATE of receipt of the copy of the decision . The prosecutor may also quash the investigator ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings following a complaint lodged by a complainant or a victim , if such a complaint has been lodged within DATE of receipt of a copy of the decision by the complainant or the victim .

A copy of the prosecutor ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings shall be sent to the complainant , the victim , his / her representative , the suspect , and defence counsel .

The court ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings may be challenged on appeal . ”

Article CARDINAL

Decisions , acts or inaction of the investigator or the prosecutor , which are amenable to appeal during the pre - trial investigation , and the right to appeal

“ CARDINAL . During the pre - trial proceedings the following decisions , acts or failures to act of the investigator or the prosecutor are amenable to appeal :

CARDINAL ) NORP the investigator ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings - by the complainant , the victim , his or her representative or legal representative ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the prosecutor ’s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings - by the complainant , the victim , his or her representative or legal representative , the suspect , his / her counsel or legal representative ... ”

Article CARDINAL

Legal consequences of lodging a complaint against a decision , act or failure to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation

“ CARDINAL . The lodging of a complaint against decisions , acts or failures to act of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation shall not stop the execution of the decision or the act of the investigator or the prosecutor .

NORP The investigator or the prosecutor may set aside his or her own decisions referred to in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of this Code , or terminate the act or failure to act complained of , which results in the termination of the proceedings concerning the complaint .

The prosecutor can set aside his or her own decisions referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW and appealed against in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , which results in the termination of the proceedings concerning the complaint . ”

Article CARDINAL

Procedure for examination of complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation

“ CARDINAL . Complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor shall be examined by an investigating judge of a local court ...

Complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act during the pre - trial investigation shall be examined within TIME of receipt of a complaint , except for complaints about the decision to terminate criminal proceedings , which shall be dealt with within DATE of receipt of the complaint .

Examination of complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act during the pre - trial investigation shall be carried out with the mandatory participation of the person who lodged the complaint or his or her defence counsel or representative , and the investigator or prosecutor whose decisions , acts or failures to act are being challenged . The absence of the investigator or prosecutor shall not be an obstacle to examination of the complaint . ”

Article CARDINAL

Decision of the investigating judge following examination of a complaint about a decision , act or failure to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation

“ ... CARDINAL . A ruling of the investigating judge following the examination of a complaint about a decision , act or failure to act during the pre - trial investigation may concern :

CARDINAL ) NORP the quashing of the decision of the investigator or prosecutor ;

CARDINAL ) NORP obligation to terminate an act ;

CARDINAL ) NORP obligation to perform a certain act ;

CARDINAL ) NORP dismissal of the complaint .

NORP The ruling of the investigating judge following the examination of a complaint about a decision , act or failure to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor is not amenable to appeal , unless it concerns a decision on the dismissal of a complaint about a decision to terminate criminal proceedings . ”

Article CARDINAL

Rulings by the investigating judge amenable to appeal during a pre - trial investigation

“ ... CARDINAL . During a pre - trial investigation decisions of the investigating judge to dismiss a complaint against a decision to terminate criminal proceedings ... may be challenged by means of an appeal . ”

Article CARDINAL

Procedure for appealing against decisions by an investigating judge

“ CARDINAL . The decisions of the investigating judge may be challenged in accordance with the appeal procedure . ”