Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Freedom from attachment;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

The applicant was a vice - president of ORG ( Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju – hereinafter “ the Fund ” ) , a legal entity established by the ORG and tasked with carrying out the privatisation of publicly owned property .

In DATE and DATE M.M. , a businessman from GPE , approached the State Attorney ’s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta DATE hereinafter : “ the ORG Attorney ’s Office ” ) alleging that he had been trying to make various business investments in GPE and that he had been introduced to a certain ORG , allegedly an official of the ORG , who had offered his assistance in pursuing the project in the ORG . In return , ORG had asked PERSON to deposit MONEY ( ORG ) in various bank accounts .

In DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) authorised the secret surveillance of a number of individuals , including ORG , in connection with suspicions of bribe - taking and abuse of power and authority . PERSON was granted informant status .

In the course of further investigation using secret surveillance , several meetings were recorded in which ORG , assisted by a consultant , PERSON , discussed with a lawyer , GPE . , the measures that needed to be taken in order to carry out a business project in the GPE region . On that occasion GPE . mentioned the applicant as her contact in the ORG . She also stated that everybody should make out well in this business undertaking . PERSON also explained that he knew the applicant from before and that very soon they would have a meeting concerning the investment at issue .

On DATE PERSON approached the State Attorney ’s Office claiming that he was the representative of FAC and that he had already had a number of contacts with various officials concerning ORG investment in GPE . In this connection , DATE before he had also contacted the applicant , in his capacity as vice - president of the ORG , who had allegedly requested a provision of PERCENT of the total investment value , which was approximately between ORG CARDINAL , to help with the realisation of the project . The applicant had explained to PERSON that that amount would have to be distributed to the bank accounts of CARDINAL ( out of CARDINAL ) vice - presidents of the ORG who would take part in the decision - making process . PERSON consented to act as an informant under the further guidance of the prosecuting authorities .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG asked an investigating judge of ORG to authorise the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant , specifically the tapping of his telephone , covert surveillance of him , the use of PERSON as an informant , and conducting a simulated purchase operation .

On DATE the application was allowed and the investigating judge ordered the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant . The relevant part of the order reads :

“ The application is accompanied by the submission of ORG , and the relevant official notes , statements and other material .

The application is well - founded since the case at issue concerns the offences under LAW of LAW , and the investigation into these offences by other means would either not be possible or would be extremely difficult .

Therefore , all the necessary requirements under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW have been met and the order should be issued with a view to securing the information and evidence necessary for the criminal case . ”

In the course of the investigation , the investigating judge issued several further orders to the same effect . Various meetings between the applicant and PERSON took place . At a meeting on DATE PERSON gave to the applicant LAW in connection with his investment project .

On DATE , on the basis of an application by ORG , the investigating judge ordered the termination of the special investigative measures , indicating that their use had produced the results sought .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in connection with a suspicion that he had taken bribes and abused his power and authority in several privatisation cases .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG forwarded to the investigating judge CARDINAL CD recordings of the secret surveillance operation , and on DATE it forwarded a further CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG asked an investigating judge of ORG to open an investigation in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals in connection with a suspicion of bribe - taking and offering bribes related to several investment projects in GPE , including the CARDINAL in the GPE region ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In its request for investigation the ORG Attorney ’s ORG relied on the results of the special investigative measures suggesting that the applicant , in his capacity as vice - president of the ORG , had requested bribes in order to support ORG investment project in the GPE region . In particular , it was alleged that he had requested bribes amounting to ORG CARDINAL and PERCENT of the total investment , which amounted to ORG CARDINAL . The secret recordings showed that the sealing of this agreement had taken place first on DATE when PERSON , acting as ORG representative , had paid the applicant LAW , and then on DATE when PERSON had deposited a further LAW in a notary public ’s safe in the applicant ’s favour . ORG also alleged that the applicant had organised the bribery of the President of the Fund in respect of the investment in the GPE region , and had agreed to further bribe - taking with PERSON concerning another investment project related to the privatisation of the hotels Ž. and P.

When questioned with regard to the charges against him , the applicant decided to remain silent and not to give evidence . On the basis of the available evidence , the investigating judge accepted the request of ORG and opened an investigation .

Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG forwarded CARDINAL CD recordings to the investigating judge . It also forwarded CARDINAL CD recordings to the investigating judge containing secret surveillance of individuals in respect of whom an investigation had not been opened at that time .

On DATE the investigating judge in charge of the supervision of the special investigative measures forwarded to the investigating judge conducting the investigation CARDINAL CD recordings and the relevant reports concerning the secret surveillance of the suspects and the informants FAC and PERSON

On DATE the applicant asked to have access to and to have copies of the secret surveillance CD and DVD recordings .

The investigating judge conducting the investigation commissioned a telecommunications expert report including transcripts of the relevant secret surveillance recordings . These were produced by GPE , a telecommunications expert . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE GPE returned CARDINAL secret surveillance CD recordings in the case at issue that did not contain the communications of the suspects in respect of whom the investigation had been opened .

NORP In the course of the investigation the investigating judge authorised numerous search and seizure operations and questioned a number of witnesses in connection with the offences for which the applicant and the other suspects had been charged .

When questioned as a witness by the investigating judge , PERSON explained that PERSON had offered him the services of his company to help with a business investment in GPE . In particular , PERSON had explained that he knew how to contact the competent ORG institutions and how these things could be done in a legal way . Soon afterwards they had sent a letter of intent to the ORG concerning ORG investment but they had not received a reply . PERSON had then contacted the applicant , who had been his colleague at university , and arranged a meeting with him at the Fund . PERSON also explained that it was PERSON who had been in contact again with the applicant concerning the investment in the GPE region .

The investigating judge also questioned PERSON but he was unable to give evidence owing to his medical condition and hospitalisation .

On the basis of the results of the investigation , the investigating judge twice extended the scope of the investigation to other alleged instances of bribe - taking and abuse of power and authority by the applicant .

Following the completion of the investigation , the investigating judge forwarded the case file to ORG for further assessment and a decision .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s Office indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals and brought them before ORG on charges of bribe - taking , offering bribes and abuse of power and authority . The applicant was indicted in his capacity as a public official on CARDINAL counts of bribe - taking and bribery of the President of the ORG related to ORG investment project in the GPE region , CARDINAL counts of bribe - taking related to the privatisation of the hotels ORG and ORG and the company ORG , and CARDINAL count of abuse of power and authority related to the privatisation of the company B.

The indictment was based on voluminous evidence obtained during the investigation and the recordings of the applicant ’s telephone communications and secret surveillance of him obtained by the use of special investigative measures . In particular , the State Attorney ’s ORG indicated the particular sequence of the relevant recordings which it intended to submit as evidence at the trial . The State Attorney ’s ORG also asked that the case file concerning the special investigative measures be examined .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the indictment , arguing that it was confusing and incomplete . He pointed out that his position in the ORG did not fall within the scope of the definition of “ public official ” under LAW . He further stressed that PERSON , a central figure in the case , had not been questioned during the investigation . The applicant also contended that his defence rights had been breached since the defence had “ neither seen nor heard ” the audio and video recordings on which the indictment had been based .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG returned the indictment to ORG on the grounds that CARDINAL count of the indictment , concerning the applicant ’s alleged participation in the bribery of the President of the ORG , had been confusing . It accordingly instructed ORG to submit an amended indictment consonant with that finding . LAW complied with the order and submitted an amended indictment on CARDINAL DATE , following which ORG confirmed it .

On DATE the president of the trial panel examined the case file of the special investigative operation . On DATE she commissioned a further expert report from the telecommunications expert GPE ordering him to produce transcripts of the relevant recordings relating to CARDINAL meetings between the applicant and PERSON

An order for further transcription of the recordings was made on DATE . This concerned the recordings of CARDINAL meetings between the applicant , PERSON and several other individuals , and the sequences of the telephone conversations and text messages concerned .

On DATE GPE produced transcripts of the recordings indicated in ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG . At the hearing the trial bench forwarded the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to the defence . The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him , contending that he had been entrapped by PERSON , who was an agent provocateur . The defence lawyer of CARDINAL of the co - accused contended that the defence had not been provided with the surveillance recordings and that those measures had been ordered contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law . The trial bench dismissed these arguments as unfounded and scheduled the examination of evidence .

On DATE GPE produced further transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the hearings on DATE and DATE ORG heard evidence from PERSON , who explained that he had represented NORP investors in GPE regarding their interest in the construction of luxury villas on the site of a former brick factory in the GPE region . He had therefore contacted the ORG and the local authorities in GPE in order to complete all the relevant administrative matters for the investment . PERSON stated that he had had several meetings with the applicant and that at CARDINAL point the applicant had requested a bribe in order to ensure the realisation of the project . PERSON had reported that to the State Attorney ’s Office and then he had consented to act as an informant . He further explained that he had given EUR CARDINAL in cash to the applicant and that , at the applicant ’s request , he had deposited a further EUR CARDINAL in a notary public ’s safe . It had been also agreed that PERSON would pay LAW on completion of the project .

On DATE the ORG commissioned another expert report from GPE concerning several particular sequences of the secret surveillance recordings .

NORP On DATE GPE produced further transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The expert report was served on the defence at a hearing on DATE . At the same hearing the trial bench heard evidence from MONEY He explained that the relevant contacts with the applicant had been arranged and directed by PERSON , and that he had not personally participated in any illegal transactions in the applicant ’s favour .

At the same hearing the defence counsel reiterated their application for access to the secret surveillance recordings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They argued that according to the available information there were in total CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings which had never been provided to the defence . In these circumstances , the defence counsel contended that they had not had an effective opportunity to prepare for the case . They also asked for access to all the recordings since it was possible that some of them contained exonerating information , which the defence could then submit as evidence .

The trial bench dismissed the application by the defence on the grounds that the recordings which were to be examined at the trial as evidence had been duly transcribed by an expert and that the relevant transcripts had been served on the defence . In the trial bench ’s view , this allowed the defence sufficient time and facilities to prepare for the case as they would be able to raise all objections concerning the recordings after their examination at the trial . Moreover , the trial bench stressed that the sole purpose of the recordings was to examine them during the trial and that LAW , although providing for the possibility of access to and copying of the case file , did not envisage the copying of CD and DVD material . The trial bench also stressed that the defence could have examined the relevant material in the court - house in the same manner as they had generally examined the case files .

On DATE the defence counsel sent a joint statement to ORG ( GPE odvjetnička komora ) complaining that they had been unable to effectively carry out their tasks as defence lawyers since they had been denied access to the secret surveillance recordings . They also contended that the evidence had been hidden from the defence and that it had been impossible for them to identify whether certain recordings could exonerate their clients or whether there had been suggestions of unlawfulness in some of them .

At a hearing on DATE the trial bench found that there were in total CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings which had been provided to the court with the indictment of the accused . There were also CARDINAL CD recordings from the same secret surveillance operation but which concerned different persons and not the accused .

On DATE another hearing was held before ORG at which the defence asked for an adjournment in order to examine the case file concerning the secret surveillance operation . The defence argued that they wanted to examine all the circumstances in which the secret surveillance had been ordered and conducted . The trial bench dismissed the request by the defence on the grounds that the case file concerning the secret surveillance order had been incorporated into the case file concerning the criminal proceedings at issue and could therefore have been consulted by the defence . The trial bench also reiterated its previous arguments concerning the reason for the dismissal of the application by the defence to obtain the copies of the CD and DVD material .

On DATE the defence counsel sent a letter to ORG asking for access to and the possibility to examine the secret surveillance recordings . They stressed that the CD and DVD material had never been made available to the defence and that there were no technical means available in the court - house which would allow for the examination of the recordings by the defence . They also pointed out that because of the technical impossibility of examining the recordings in the court - house , the practice of ORG in several other cases had been to make copies of the CD and DVD recordings and to send them to the defence . In these circumstances , the defence argued that the Convention rights of the accused to effectively prepare their defence had been breached .

On DATE the president of the trial panel commissioned another expert report from GPE concerning several further secret surveillance recordings .

DATE . On DATE defence counsel for CARDINAL of the co - accused sent a letter to the President of ORG indicating that it had been impossible for the defence to obtain access to and to examine the secret surveillance recordings by any means whatsoever .

Further hearings before ORG were held on CARDINAL and DATE at which the secret surveillance recordings were played back . The applicant argued that the recordings were incomplete and confusing and that there were discrepancies between the transcripts and the recordings . He contended that it was impossible for his counsel to work thoroughly since they had not had access to the recordings . The lead prosecutor also indicated that there were certain discrepancies between the transcripts and the recordings , which she then tried to clarify at the hearing . The trial court ordered the State Attorney ’s Office to provide the relevant clarifications and it also commissioned a report from the expert GPE in order to provide explanations concerning his particular findings .

Meanwhile , on DATE GPE produced further transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the president of the trial panel commissioned another expert report from GPE concerning several other secret surveillance recordings . The expert produced his additional report on DATE .

At the hearings CARDINAL DATE additional secret surveillance recordings were examined . The applicant argued that he had been entrapped and that the recordings were unlawful evidence .

Further hearings before ORG were held CARDINAL ; CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL and DATE at which the trial court heard witnesses and examined further secret surveillance recordings .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to again question the informant PERSON and to take further evidence concerning his activities in the Fund .

A hearing was held on DATE where the trial bench heard further witnesses .

At a hearing on DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG asked that further secret surveillance recordings be admitted into evidence and examined . The applicant contended that the recordings had been unlawfully obtained as the use of secret surveillance measures had been ordered contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law . The trial bench accepted the request of ORG and commissioned an expert report from GPE , instructing him to provide transcripts of the recordings .

Further hearings were held on DATE , DATE and DATE at which the trial bench heard evidence from several witnesses .

On DATE GPE produced transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Further hearings were held on DATE and DATE at which the trial bench heard further witnesses . The applicant contended that the initial contacts of PERSON and PERSON with ORG showed that they had been prepared to act as agents provocateurs and that he had been entrapped into engaging in illegal activities . He therefore asked that the evidence obtained by the use of informants be excluded as unlawfully obtained . The trial bench dismissed the applicant ’s arguments on the grounds that nothing suggested that he had been entrapped .

At the hearings DATE the trial bench questioned the accused . The applicant stated that he had been incited to engage in illegal activities by PERSON but he refused to answer any further questions on the matter .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG submitted an amended indictment specifying the charges against the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial . At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty to the amended indictment . He reiterated his arguments that he had been entrapped by PERSON and that he had not taken any actions which he had not been entitled to take as vice - president of the Fund .

Further hearings were held CARDINAL DATE at which the trial bench heard the parties’ closing arguments .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG delivered a judgment finding that the applicant , in his capacity as a public official as defined under LAW , had taken bribes ( LAW ) , facilitated bribe - taking ( LAW ) and abused his power and authority ( LAW , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ) in connection with ORG investment project in the GPE region , the privatisation of the hotels ORG and ORG and the privatisation of the company B. The court sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . At the same time , it acquitted the applicant on charges of bribe - taking related to the privatisation of the company ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG explained that all the relevant facts concerning the circumstances of the case had been duly established and that therefore there was no reason for the examination of further evidence requested by the applicant .

As regards the application by the defence to obtain the secret surveillance recordings and a complaint of non - disclosure of certain recordings , ORG noted :

“ With regard to the recordings which [ the State Attorney ’s Office ] asked to be examined at the trial , an expert report was commissioned , that is to say , transcripts were prepared which were served on all the parties , the accused and their lawyers , who were thereby fully informed of the substance of the recordings submitted into evidence . In addition , this panel finds , that , with regard to the recordings which were to be examined at the trial , there was no obstacle to the defence lawyers examining [ those recordings ] in the court - house before the commencement of the trial .

With regard to the other conversations of the accused , these [ recordings ] were not submitted into evidence but the defence could have examined their substance by the examination of the written reports filed in the [ special investigation case file ] after the submission of the indictment .

This panel also considers that the recordings at issue were made solely for their examination at the trial and had they been provided to the parties , the court would not have had any legal basis at its disposal to prevent and prohibit the parties from reproducing [ them ] outside of the PERSON ] before their examination at trial , and [ the court would not have had any legal means ] to prevent possible misuse of the recorded material .

This in particular concerns the recordings which were not submitted into evidence ; that is to say [ the recordings ] which concern other individuals and not the accused . Since these recordings were not submitted into evidence , the application by the defence to obtain them is completely unfounded .

Furthermore , this panel has found that ... CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings were given [ to the court ] whereas the remaining CARDINAL CD recordings concern individuals who had been under secret surveillance ... but were not [ subsequently indicted ] .

Moreover , as was noted above , the defence had knowledge of the substance of the material submitted into evidence and they had no right to examine material which does not concern these proceedings ; that is to say [ material which concerns ] individuals who were not indicted in these criminal proceedings ...

This is because section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that if within DATE following the termination of a secret surveillance operation criminal proceedings have not been instituted against the [ individual under surveillance ] , all the material collected [ during the operation ] must be destroyed .

It is clear that , since criminal proceedings were not instituted against these individuals , the recordings at issue are still confidential and should have been destroyed ; they could not be and were not evidence in these criminal proceedings ...

If these recordings were put at the disposal of the defence , that would amount to a breach of the above - cited provisions of law , particularly because [ the recordings constitute ] confidential material concerning individuals who are not under indictment .

Moreover , LAW guarantees respect for the private life of every individual , and the court is obliged to act LAW ... , so if it provided the defence with the recordings concerning other individuals ... that would amount to breach of the above - cited provision of the LAW ... ”

As to the applicant ’s plea of entrapment , ORG noted :

“ ... This panel finds that [ the evidence obtained by the use of informants ] is not unlawful evidence because it was obtained on the basis of an investigating judge ’s orders . The substance of the adduced evidence and the examined recordings do not show that there was incitement by the informant ... as was further demonstrated . ”

DATE . With regard to the charges against the applicant and the evidence obtained by the use of informants , ORG extensively examined the secret surveillance recordings . It in particular analysed the recordings concerning a meeting on DATE where the applicant had indicated to PERSON that a deposit should be made with regard to the investment and where he had also assured PERSON that the project would pass the procedure . During the conversation the applicant had explained to PERSON that it was usual to remunerate for lobbying and he had further stated the following :

“ However , for [ the investor ] , these [ things ] , this information , this access and the [ action ] which will be taken while the project is [ in the pipeline ] – for this lobbying ... that is worth ... what I told you the last time . And he can do it , that is QUANTITY ... for them that is for a drink , for this company ... That is CARDINAL [ glasses of ] wine compared to [ our other possibilities ] . So that ’s that and then , then we can make a deposit as you said . After that , if the decision goes through something ... is to be given to me , that is , for him ... let ’s say QUANTITY more or less when the whole thing goes through . Because on an investment of QUANTITY to give CARDINAL ... for him that would not be even PERCENT ... I would be overly modest if that would be so , you understand [ sic ] . ”

The applicant challenged the first - instance judgment by lodging an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) . He contended that he had been entrapped and unlawfully and unjustifiably placed under secret surveillance . He pointed out in particular that the secret surveillance orders had not been properly reasoned and had been issued under LAW and not ORG ( hereinafter “ the OSCOC Act ” ) . He also complained that the relevant evidence had not been disclosed to the defence , and that the first - instance court had erred in the legal qualification of his position as falling under the term “ public official ” under LAW of LAW .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment in respect of the charges of bribery of the President of the ORG related to ORG investment project in the GPE region and ordered a retrial . At the same time , it upheld the applicant ’s conviction on charges of bribe - taking under LAW and abuse of power and authority under LAW .

As to the applicant ’s complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the secret surveillance measures , ORG noted :

“ The first complaint to the effect that the results of the special investigative measures are unlawfully obtained evidence because the investigating judge ’s orders were made under LAW and not the [ OSCOC Act ] is ill - founded .

It is true that the [ OSCOC Act ] is lex specialis , but the appellants failed to observe that LAW ) of that LAW provides that the investigating judge may order , ‘ save for the measures under LAW , CARDINAL additional measures which are not provided under LAW , namely the use of simulated business services and simulated business contracts . The special investigative measures ... applied in the case at issue are not provided for under LAW ] and therefore the [ investigating judge ’s ] orders could have been based only on LAW . Had the investigating judge authorised any of the measures provided for in CARDINAL ) of the [ OSCOC Act ] , he would have been obliged to rely on that Act .

The further arguments that the results of the special investigative measures are unlawfully obtained evidence because the investigating judge , when making the orders , CARDINAL of them , failed to comply with the requirements set out in the case - law of ORG [ no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] to the effect that the orders must be sufficiently reasoned , are also ill - founded ...

This court considers that mere flaws in the reasoning of the secret surveillance orders do not make the results of such measures unlawfully obtained evidence . This is because LAW provides that unlawfully obtained evidence is evidence which has been obtained in breach of LAW , and is expressly provided for by LAW ] .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that evidence obtained by the use of secret surveillance , under LAW , can not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings only [ in a case where ] it is unlawful . That is to say , evidence which is obtained without a warrant issued by the investigating judge , or if the [ police ] acted contrary to ORG and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , but [ this does not concern ] the evidence obtained contrary to LAW , which provides that the order [ authorising special investigative measures ] should , inter alia , refer to the facts which warrant the application of such measures , specifically that there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a criminal offence and that the investigation could not have been carried out by other means or that [ to do so ] would have been extremely difficult .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW is compatible with the legal nature of [ special investigation ] orders . Such orders [ made by the investigating judge ] are transmitted to the ORG Attorney , who is authorised to request them , and they are executed by the police . There is no legal avenue [ to challenge ] such orders since the [ ORG Attorney ] has no legal interest in challenging them . The police were therefore , moreover , not allowed to challenge the orders . If the argument of the appellants that secret surveillance orders would be unlawful when they are not sufficiently reasoned were to be accepted , it would call into doubt the [ use of ] secret surveillance measures , particularly in situations where all other legal conditions had been met but the order was merely not sufficiently reasoned , which would be absolutely unacceptable . ”

As to the applicant ’s plea of entrapment , ORG held :

“ The complaints ... that the informants PERSON and PERSON had incited the accused were raised by all the accused during the first - instance proceedings , and the [ first - instance ] court correctly found that [ this claim ] was not clear from the reviewed material . The same complaints are now raised by the accused , PERSON , PERSON and GPE , and this court considers that their complaints are ill - founded .

The witnesses PERSON and PERSON testified that they had become informants after certain accused asked them for bribes [ for carrying out the investment ] . [ M.]M. consented to act as an informant on DATE and PERSON on DATE . After that the activity of gathering evidence commenced .

The offence of bribe - taking , which is the subject matter of these proceedings , is committed [ just ] by making a request for a gift or benefit , and since the witnesses contacted the ORG Attorney after they had been asked to make a payment to the accused ... the plea of incitement can not be accepted . ”

With respect to the complaint about the non - disclosure of evidence , ORG noted :

“ The argument that the rights of the defence were violated by the non - disclosure of CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings , which were the result of the secret surveillance operation , can not be accepted ...

It is undisputed that at the hearing held on DATE the trial court established the exact number of recordings and found that CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings had been submitted with the indictment , while it was found that the [ special investigation ] case file contained a further CARDINAL CD recordings concerning the secret surveillance of other persons who are not accused in the proceedings at issue . It is also not disputed that the ORG Attorney asked that CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings be examined as evidence , and that the telecommunications expert made transcripts of these recordings , which were then forwarded to the parties . It is further undisputed that the recordings were reviewed at a hearing , that the accused and their lawyers were present , and that they made their objections concerning the transcripts and not concerning the recordings . It is to be noted that the transcripts are not evidence on which a conviction can be based but are only of auxiliary technical assistance . The only evidence on which a conviction can be based is the recordings , in respect of which no objections were made .

Therefore , the defence had access to all the evidence from the secret surveillance , and the trial court allowed them to comment on the evidence adduced and they exercised that right .

The trial court rightly held that , given that the defence had been informed of the substance of the evidence adduced , they had no right to have the other material which did not concern the accused in the proceedings at issue disclosed . The trial court also rightly pointed to the provision of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provides that the material obtained by the use of secret surveillance shall be destroyed if , within the DATE time - limit , criminal proceedings have not been instituted against the persons under surveillance ...

Whether the ORG Attorney , when he was making his selection of the secret surveillance material [ to be submitted to the court ] , excluded certain evidence in favour of the accused ... is of no relevance to the lawfulness of the proceedings at issue . Under the relevant provisions of LAW the ORG Attorney adduces only relevant evidence concerning the substance of the charges , and therefore he is in a position to make a selection of the evidence . ”

As regards the applicant ’s complaint of the erroneous legal qualification of his position , ORG noted that the applicant ’s position in the ORG had not been CARDINAL of a “ public official ” but rather of a “ responsible person ” under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . However , in ORG view , this did not render the conviction unlawful . In this connection ORG explained :

“ ... [ T]he omission at issue had no bearing on the legal qualification of the offence because the criminal offence under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW can be committed by public officials and responsible persons when they take the actions for which the court found ... Matanović guilty ... ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) reiterating his arguments of entrapment , the unlawfulness of the secret surveillance orders , the lack of access to evidence and the erroneous legal qualification of his conviction . He relied , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL § DATE , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW and Articles QUANTITY ( b ) and CARDINAL of the LAW . The applicant also complained that the statements of various public officials breached of his right to the presumption of innocence .

DATE . On DATE ORG , relying on the ORG ’s case - law in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) found a violation of the applicant ’s right to the presumption of innocence but dismissed his other complaints , endorsing the findings and reasoning of ORG .

Meanwhile , on DATE , following a retrial in respect of the charges of bribery of the President of the ORG related to ORG investment project in the GPE region ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG acquitted the applicant , and this judgment was confirmed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant , represented by ORG , a lawyer , lodged an application for the reopening of the proceedings before ORG . He relied , in particular , on a document allegedly issued by ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) on DATE indicating that PERSON had worked as a police officer in the period DATE . Together with the document in question the applicant submitted a written statement by ORG , a lawyer , indicating that the document had been “ accidently ” left in her office by GPE some time in DATE . The applicant contended that this shed light on the actions of PERSON , who had acted as an agent provocateur in his case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for the reopening of the proceedings on the grounds that , even if the document submitted by the applicant suggested that PERSON had worked as a police officer , there was no doubt that he had not been a police officer at the moment when he had acted as an informant in the applicant ’s case . ORG also considered that there were no new relevant facts warranting the reopening of the proceedings .

The applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG on DATE ; it appears that the proceedings are still pending .


Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Ivetić , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , was killed in his house in PERSON together with his friend PERSON

On DATE the investigating judge of the then ORG conducted an on - site investigation in the presence of criminal and medical experts and CARDINAL police officers . Some members of the family were also present .

It would appear that no other procedural steps were taken thereafter .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , to ORG , to ORG and to ORG ( IPTF ) in GPE , enquiring whether the perpetrators had been identified or arrested . It would appear that he received no answer .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining about the lack of an effective investigation into the killing of his brother . On DATE ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) joined the applicant ’s case to CARDINAL other similar cases ( some of which concerned missing persons and others , like the applicant ’s , war time killings ) and found a violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered the competent authorities to conduct effective investigations into the relevant disappearances and murders without delay and to inform the relatives of the results ( decision no . AP-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG that , following its decision of DATE , no procedural steps had been taken with a view to investigate his brother ’s murder .

On DATE ORG adopted a procedural decision ( a decision which merely acknowledges the fact of non - enforcement and which is transferred to ORG for further , if any , action ) , to the effect that its decision of DATE had not been fully enforced as regards , in particular , the applicant ’s and several other cases .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s enquiry , ORG informed him that the case file ( the photographs taken at the crime scene , the record of the on - site investigation and other material gathered during the on - site investigation ) had been transferred to ORG because the case concerned a war crime . It is not clear when the transfer took place .

On DATE the applicant was invited to provide information concerning war crimes committed in the territory of the PERSON municipality to ORG on DATE .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s enquiry , ORG informed him that all the necessary steps were being taken with a view to discovering those involved in the murder of his brother .

The DATE LAW ( ORG GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . The relevant part of LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Whoever in violation of rules of international law in time of war , armed conflict or occupation , orders or perpetrates any of the following acts :

a ) Attack on civilian population , settlement , individual civilians or persons unable to fight , which results in the death , grave bodily injuries or serious damaging of people ’s health ;

b ) Killings ...

shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not DATE or by long - term imprisonment ” .


Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano

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

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

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

NORP Apparently in DATE the applicant was subject to an enforcement inquiry ( ulosottoselvitys , utsökningsutredning ) in which he had to provide information on his assets , debts and income . Another enforcement inquiry was carried out on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged on CARDINAL counts of making a false statement in court ( perätön lausuma tuomioistuimessa , osann utsaga inför domstol ) as he had , inter alia , given false information in DATE and DATE before the domestic courts in a matter in which he was heard as a witness .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant as charged and imposed a suspended prison sentence of DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . Justice PERSON was part of the composition of ORG . ORG judgment became final as no appeal was lodged .

On DATE charges were pressed against the applicant who was accused , inter alia , of aggravated debtor ’s fraud ( törkeä velallisen petos , grovt gäldenärsbedrägeri ) for not having declared , during the enforcement inquiry on DATE , the real estate which was used as his principal residence but which was officially owned by a limited liability company , all of whose shares were owned by the applicant ’s children .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of , inter alia , aggravated debtor ’s fraud for failing to declare the above real estate on DATE and sentenced him to a total of DATE and DATE in prison . The court found that the applicant had been obliged to declare the property concerned and since he had not done so during the inquiry on DATE , he was guilty of concealing his property .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that the ORG judgment be quashed . He alleged in particular that ORG had not explained why , on DATE during the enforcement inquiry , he should have declared the real estate as his personal property when it was owned by a limited liability company . The company had obtained legal confirmation of ownership ( lainhuuto , lagfart ) and had been officially entered in the land register as the owner of the real estate . The property rights of the company or its shareholders were never even put into question . The applicant claimed that he had given truthful information on DATE .

On DATE the oral hearing started before ORG and the names of the justices sitting in the composition became known to the parties . The oral hearing continued on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment as far as the count of aggravated debtor ’s fraud was concerned . It agreed with the lower instance that during the enforcement inquiry on DATE the applicant had been obliged to declare the property concerned and since he had not done so the conviction should be upheld . Concerning any possible issue of self - incrimination , ORG found it established that on DATE , during the enforcement inquiry , the applicant had not been charged with any crime . He had not therefore had any right to remain silent on DATE but should have declared the real estate . This judgment was delivered by the ORG composition which included Justice PERSON

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He also referred to the prohibition on self - incrimination and claimed that , when making his statement on DATE , it could not be ruled out that he could have been accused of debtor ’s fraud , had he given any information . Moreover , he claimed that Justice PERSON had been biased as he had been part of the ORG composition also on DATE when the applicant had been convicted of making a false statement in court .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting that ORG judgment of DATE be annulled and the proceedings reopened due to the fact that ORG had been biased and the prohibition of selfincrimination had been violated .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for annulment and reopening .

At the material time , the provisions on enforcement inquiry were included in LAW ( ulosottolaki , utsökningslagen , Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL ) . These provisions stated that , for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information for enforcement , the Bailiff could carry out an enforcement inquiry . For the enforcement inquiry , the debtor had to provide information on his assets , debts and income , as well as his or her address and the name of his or her employer . He also had to give information about the whereabouts of any object or document which , by a judgment , he had been ordered to give to another person or which by law had to be given to the enforcement authority .

In the enforcement inquiry , the debtor had to provide such information as was necessary to establish whether property disposed of and related transactions could be recovered for the purposes of enforcement . Where requested by the Bailiff , the debtor in the enforcement inquiry had to prepare a list of assets , debts and income , or verify and confirm by signature such a list prepared by the Bailiff on the basis of information given by the debtor .

If the debtor or his or her representative failed to comply with their obligations , the Bailiff could order the debtor to fulfil the obligations within a specified time - limit under threat of an administrative fine . Payment of the administrative fine was ordered if the obligations had not been fulfilled or had been contravened without a valid reason .

As from DATE LAW , section DATE , of LAW contained also a provision prohibiting the Bailiff from transmitting incriminating information to other authorities . This provision read as follows :

“ The Bailiff must not disclose information which has to a substantial extent been received from :

CARDINAL ) the debtor , when asked about a fact referred to in DATE of LAW , if the answer indicates that the debtor may have committed an offence in a context other than the enforcement procedure , and the disclosure of the information entails a risk of charges for the debtor ;

LAW was replaced by LAW ( ulosottokaari , utsökningsbalken , Act no . DATE ) with effect from DATE . The contents of the relevant provisions essentially remained the same .

Concealment of property and provision of incorrect information in an enforcement inquiry are punishable offences under LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . ORG ) .


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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences in an armed organised criminal group .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody until DATE . The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences he had been accused of . The risk of the applicant fleeing was also taken into account as a ‘ wanted’ notice ( list gończy ) against him had been issued in DATE . At that time he had not been residing at his permanent address and his whereabouts had not been established . The court further anticipated a heavy prison sentence to be imposed on the applicant if convicted .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE . Subsequently , it was extended by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and on DATE .

In their decisions to extend the applicant ’s pre - trial detention the courts relied on a reasonable suspicion , supported by evidence given by witnesses and other members of the criminal group , that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The courts further emphasised the risk of the applicant fleeing or obstructing the proceedings and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him if convicted . The domestic courts attached importance to the complex character of the case , to the complex structure of the criminal group and the number of suspects involved and the necessity of collecting additional evidence for the inclusion in the already voluminous case file .

On DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug - trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE . Subsequently , the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .

In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’s detention .

Meanwhile , the court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .

The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and due to problems with sound system in the court room .

In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL co - accused separately .

The bill of indictment was only finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .

NORP In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered that the applicant ’s detention on remand be lifted on condition that he paid the bail in the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) within DATE from the date of the decision .

On the same date the applicant was released on bail and police supervision . He was also prohibited from leaving the country .

ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .

Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of the presiding judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings – because of absences of the parties .

Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki DATE “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and ORG in compensation .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of misuse of illegal pornographic material .

In the ensuing criminal proceedings , the Budapest IV / XV District Court acquitted the applicant on DATE , after holding CARDINAL hearings .

NORP On appeal , ORG upheld the acquittal on DATE .


No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence)

András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus Kūris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iulia Motoc;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and now lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant moved to the city of GPE . She took up residence in rented property at the address A. Street CARDINALb . This address is located in the GPE district in GPE . The applicant had previously resided outside LOC ( Stadsregio Rotterdam ) .

The applicant stated that no later than early CARDINAL the owner of the property asked her and her CARDINAL young children to vacate the property as he wished to renovate it for his own use . He offered to let the applicant a different property at the address B. Street CARDINALA , also in the GPE area . She further stated that , since it comprised CARDINAL rooms and a garden , the property was far more suitable for her and her children than her A. Street dwelling which comprised a single room . However , whether the A. Street property was actually renovated or required renovation at all remains in dispute ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the meantime on DATE , GPE had been designated under LAW ( Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as an area where only those households could move into housing who had been granted a housing permit ( huisvestingsvergunning ) to do so in relation to an identified property . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for a housing permit with the PERSON and Aldermen ( burgemeester en wethouders ) of GPE in order to be permitted to move to B. Street CARDINALA.

On DATE the PERSON and Aldermen gave a decision refusing such a permit . They found it established that the applicant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a housing permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on the basis that she had not been resident in LOC for DATE immediately preceding the introduction of her request . Moreover , since she was dependent on social - security benefits under ORG ( PERSON ) , she also did not meet the income requirement that would have qualified her for an exemption from the residence requirement .

The applicant , who was represented throughout the domestic proceedings and before the ORG by the same lawyer , lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the LOC and Aldermen .

On DATE the PERSON and Aldermen gave a decision dismissing the applicant ’s objection . Adopting as their own an advisory opinion by ORG ( PERSON bezwaarschriftencommissie ) , they referred to the fact that housing permits were intended to be an instrument to ensure the balanced and equitable distribution of housing and to the possibility for the applicant to move to a dwelling not situated in a “ hotspot ” area .

The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG ( rechtbank ) . In so far as relevant to the case , she argued that the hardship clause ought to have been applied . She relied on LAW CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . She also submitted that the requirement of CARDINAL years’ residence in LOC , as applied to her , constituted discrimination based on income status contrary to Article CARDINAL of LAW .

ORG gave a decision dismissing the applicant ’s appeal on DATE ( ORG : NL : RBROT:CARDINAL:BDCARDINAL ) . In so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , its reasoning was as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LOC Act [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on freedom of residence in areas to be indicated by the Minister [ sc . the Minister of ORG and the Environment ( Minister PERSON , PERSON en Milieubeheer ) ] . The aim of these restrictions is to reverse a process of overburdening and decreasing quality of life ( leefkwaliteit ) , particularly by striving towards districts whose composition is more mixed from a socioeconomic point of view . The restrictions are also intended actively to counteract the existing segregation of incomes throughout the city through the regulation of the supply of housing in certain districts and in so doing improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of those districts ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL [ i.e. the Explanatory Memorandum ( PERSON ) , see paragraph CARDINAL below ] , pages CARDINAL ) . In view of the aims of the law , as set out , these temporary restrictions on the freedom to choose one ’s residence can not be found not to be justified by the general interest in a NORP society . Nor can it be found that , given the considerable extent of the problems noted in certain districts in GPE , the said restrictions are not necessary for the maintenance of ordre public . ORG takes the view that the legislature has sufficiently shown that in those districts the ‘ limits of the capacity for absorption’ have been reached as regards care and support for the socioeconomically underprivileged and that moreover in those districts there is a concentration of underprivileged individuals in deprived districts as well as considerable dissatisfaction among the population about inappropriate behaviour , nuisance and crime .

As regards the violation of LAW posited by [ the applicant ] , ORG takes the view that sufficient reasons have been given ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG , DATE , QUANTITY , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) that in so far as these measures constitute an indirect distinction , this distinction has sufficient objective justification .

ORG observes in this connection that the restrictions based on LOC imposed by the DATE Housing By - law [ of GPE ] ( Huisvestingsverordening DATE ) constitute only a minimal and temporary restriction on the freedom to choose one ’s residence . In so finding , ORG notes that it does not appear – and [ the applicant ] has not made out a case – that [ she ] can not obtain fitting housing elsewhere in the LOC or the LOC . ”

The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . As she had done before ORG , she invoked LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG gave a decision ( ORG : NL : RVS:CARDINAL:BHCARDINAL ) dismissing the applicant ’s further appeal . In so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , its reasoning included the following :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The right freely to choose one ’s residence , provided by LAW CARDINAL , may , under the fourth paragraph , be subject , in particular areas , to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a NORP society . The right of everyone freely to choose one ’s residence , laid down in LAW , shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law and are necessary to protect public order . ORG observes in this connection that the concept ‘ public ORG in the LAW includes , in addition to the prevention of disorder , public safety , the prevention of crime and all universally accepted fundamental principles corresponding to human rights on which a democratic society is based . The arrangement set out in section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law constitutes a restriction on GPE ’s free choice of a place of residence . It is not disputed that this restriction is provided for by law and is inspired by the interest that society has in [ ensuring ] the quality of life in districts of major cities . ORG finds that , considering that the area in issue is CARDINAL designated under section CARDINAL of the Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) Act , the LOC and Aldermen were entitled to take the view that the restriction [ on freedom to choose one ’s residence ] is justified in the general interest in a NORP society within the meaning of LAW § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . The area in issue is a so - called ‘ GPE , where , as has not been disputed , the quality of life is under threat . The restriction resulting from section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law is of a temporary nature , namely for DATE . It is not established that the supply of housing outside the areas designated by the Minister in ORG is insufficient . What [ the applicant ] has stated about waiting times does not lead ORG to reach a different finding . ORG further takes into account that pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , introductory sentence and under b of GPE , the Minister is empowered to rescind the designation of the area if it turns out that persons seeking housing do not have sufficient possibility of finding suitable housing within the region in which the municipality is situated . In view of these facts and circumstances ORG finds that the restriction in issue is not contrary to the requirements of a pressing social need and proportionality . ORG therefore finds , as ORG did , that section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law does not violate LAW CARDINAL of the Convention or Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .

As to GPE ’s argument that section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law violates LAW , first sentence , of FAC because it entails an indirect distinction , ORG holds as follows . Since a relatively large number of people are resident in the areas covered by that section who are dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and LAW , section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) can lead to an indirect distinction being made . Such a distinction is permitted if there is an objective and reasonable justification for that distinction and the difference in treatment that flows from it . Whether such is the case must be considered in the light of the question whether the making of the distinction serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved , i.e. is a suitable means to achieve that aim and the aim can not be achieved by other , less intrusive means . Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law is intended by ORG ( gemeenteraad ) to effect differentiation in the districts in order to increase the quality of life . Given the seriousness of the problems the solution thereof must be considered a legitimate aim . The income requirement set by section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law is the final measure of a package of measures ( pakket van maatregelen ) introduced to meet that goal . It has not , or not sufficiently , been disputed that the other measures in themselves produce insufficient effect . Considering the fact that the measure is limited in time and it does not appear that GPE can not obtain suitable housing elsewhere in the LOC or the Region , ORG agrees with ORG that the PERSON and Aldermen , taking into account the fact that the legislature created the possibility to make use of this means by statute and explicitly and the legislature equally weighed the need to open this possibility in addition to the existing possibilities , had good reasons to take the view that , in addition to the measures already in existence , this measure too is necessary and proportionate .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Finally , GPE has submitted that the PERSON and Aldermen were wrong to find that the particular circumstances on which she relied did not constitute grounds to apply the hardship clauses . These particular circumstances are that her present dwelling is too small for her and her CARDINAL children and that its poor state of repair causes her inconvenience ( voor overlast zorgt ) . It is the policy of the PERSON and Aldermen to apply the hardship clauses only in untenable situations , for example in cases of violence . Like ORG , ORG takes the view that the PERSON and Aldermen were entitled to consider that there is no such situation in the present case . ”

According to figures published by GPE , there were CARDINAL dwellings in the municipality in DATE , of which CARDINAL or PERCENT were situated in GPE . The total number of dwellings in the CARDINAL districts designated in DATE PERSON , GPE , ORG and GPE – was CARDINAL , i.e. PERCENT of the total for the municipality . With the addition of PERSON ( designated on DATE ) , the total came to CARDINAL or PERCENT .

DATE . On DATE the population of the municipality of GPE stood at CARDINAL . Of these , CARDINAL or PERCENT were resident in GPE . The total number of inhabitants of the CARDINAL districts designated in DATE was CARDINAL , i.e. PERCENT of the total for the municipality . With the addition of GPE , the total for the designated districts came to CARDINAL or PERCENT .

An evaluation report , commissioned by GPE ’s own ORG ( ORG ) after DATE following the introduction of the housing permit in GPE , was published on DATE by ORG ( ORG voor NORP en PERSON ) , a research and advice bureau collecting statistical data and carrying out research relevant to developments in GPE in areas including demographics , the economy and employment ( hereafter “ the DATE evaluation report ” ) .

The report noted a reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act in “ hotspot ” areas , though not , of course , a complete stop because GPE residents of CARDINAL years’ standing were not prevented from moving there .

From DATE until DATE there had been CARDINAL requests for a housing permit . Of these , CARDINAL had been granted ; CARDINAL had been refused ; CARDINAL had been rejected as incomplete ; and CARDINAL were still pending . The hardship clause ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LOC ) had been applied in CARDINAL cases .

DATE of the housing permits granted concerned housing let by private landlords ; the remainder DATE had been granted through the intermediary of social housing bodies ( woningcorporaties ) . The latter selected their tenants with due regard to the official requirements , so that refusals of housing permits with regard to social housing were unheard of .

Of the persons refused a housing permit , DATE ( PERCENT of all those who met with a refusal ) were known to have found housing elsewhere relatively quickly .

NORP The DATE evaluation report was presented to ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG voted to maintain the housing permit system as was and have a new evaluation report commissioned for DATE .

A second evaluation report , also commissioned by GPE ’s ORG , was published by ORG DATE . It covered the period from DATE until DATE ( “ the DATE evaluation report ” ) , during which the events complained of took place .

During this period , the social housing bodies had let CARDINAL dwellings in the areas concerned . Since the social housing bodies could only accept tenants who qualified for a housing permit , no applications for such a permit had been rejected in this group .

Out of CARDINAL applications for a housing permit relating to privatelylet housing , CARDINAL had been accepted ( PERCENT ) ; CARDINAL had been refused ( PERCENT ) ; and CARDINAL had been pending at DATE . Examination of a further CARDINAL had been discontinued without a decision being taken ( PERCENT ) , generally because these applications had been withdrawn or abandoned ; the assumption was that many of these applications would in any case have been rejected . It followed , therefore , that if the pending cases were not taken into account , CARDINAL of this category of applications had been either refused or not pursued to a conclusion .

The reason to reject an application for a housing permit had been related to the income requirement in PERCENT of cases , sometimes in combination with another ground for rejection ; failure to meet the income requirement had been the sole such reason in PERCENT of cases .

Of CARDINAL persons refused a housing permit , CARDINAL were known to have managed to find housing elsewhere , either in GPE ( PERCENT ) or elsewhere in the GPE ( PERCENT ) .

The hardship clause had been applied CARDINAL times – expressed as a percentage of applications relating to privately - let housing , PERCENT of the total . These had been cases of preventing squatters from taking over housing left empty ( antikraak ) , illegal immigrants whose situation had been regularised by a general measure ( generaal pardon ) , assisted living arrangements for vulnerable individuals ( begeleid wonen ) , cooperative living arrangements ( woongroepen ) , start - up enterprises , the re - housing ( herhuisvesting ) of households forced to clear substandard housing for renovation , and foreign students . In addition , in CARDINAL of cases the hardship clause had been applied because a decision had not been given within the prescribed time - limit .

The effects of the measure were considered based on CARDINAL indicators : proportion of residents dependent on social - security benefits under ORG , corrected for the supply of suitable housing ; perception of safety ; social quality ; and potential accumulation of housing problems :

( a ) It had been observed that in the areas where the housing permit requirement applied , the reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act had been more rapid in “ hotspot ” areas than in other parts of GPE . In addition , the number of residents in receipt of such benefits as a proportion of the total population of those areas had also declined , although it was still greater than elsewhere .

( b ) In CARDINAL of the areas where the housing permit requirement had been introduced , the increase in the perception of public safety had been more rapid than the GPE average . GPE had shown an increase initially , but was now back to where it had been before the measure was introduced . CARDINAL other area had actually declined significantly in this respect . All of the areas where the housing permit requirement applied were still perceived as considerably less safe than GPE as a whole .

( c ) In terms of social quality , there had been improvement in most of the parts of GPE where problems existed , GPE among them . It was noted , however , that the effect of the housing permit in this respect was limited , since it only influenced the selection of new residents , not that of residents already in place .

( d ) Housing DATE defined in terms of turnover , housing left unused , and house price development – had increased somewhat in the affected areas including GPE , though on the whole at a slower rate there than elsewhere . Reported reasons for the increase were an influx of immigrants of mostly non - NORP extraction ( nieuwe Nederlanders , “ new GPE nationals ” ) and new short - term residents from LOC ; the latter in particular tended to stay for DATE or less before moving on , and their economic activity was more difficult to keep under review as many were self - employed .

Social housing bodies tended to view the housing permit requirement as a nuisance because it created additional paperwork . They perceived the measure rather as an appropriate instrument to tackle abuses by private landlords , provided that it be actively enforced and administrative procedures be simplified . Others with a professional involvement in the GPE housing market mentioned the dissuasive effect of the measure on would - be new residents of the affected areas .

NORP The report suggested that the housing permit requirement might no longer be needed for one of the existing “ hotspots ” ( not GPE ) . Conversely , CARDINAL other GPE districts scored high for CARDINAL indicators , while a sixth exceeded critical values for all CARDINAL .

A third evaluation report , this time commissioned by GPE ’s ORG ) , was published by ORG in DATE ( second revised edition ) . It covered the period from DATE until DATE ( “ the DATE evaluation report ” ) .

NORP The social housing bodies had let CARDINAL dwellings in the areas concerned ; as during DATE , no applications for housing permits had been rejected in this group because the social housing bodies could only accept qualifying tenants .

There had been CARDINAL applications for a housing permit relating to privately - let housing . Of these , CARDINAL had been accepted ( PERCENT ) ; CARDINAL had been refused ( PERCENT ) ; and CARDINAL had been pending on DATE . Examination of CARDINAL had been discontinued without a decision being taken ( PERCENT ) , generally because they had been withdrawn or abandoned . This meant that , if the pending cases were not taken into account , CARDINAL of applications were either rejected or not pursued to a conclusion because the household concerned had reconsidered its decision to move .

DATE . The reasons to reject an application for a housing permit had included failure to meet the income requirement in PERCENT of cases , sometimes combined with other reasons . In the remaining cases the decision to reject had been based on the excessive number of persons wishing to take up residence in a particular dwelling ; the unlawful sub - letting of rooms ; the absence of valid residence rights ; or the fact that the person making the application was underage .

The individual hardship clause had been applied in CARDINAL cases ; as a proportion of successful applications for a housing permit , this amounted to PERCENT . In addition , in CARDINAL cases objections had been lodged against refusals ; of these , CARDINAL had been successful and had resulted in the grant of a housing permit . The grounds on which the hardship clause was applied were the same as those stated in the DATE evaluation report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In terms of social index , GPE continued to score lowest of all the GPE districts . Social cohesion was very weak , which was explained by the number of house moves but also by a general lack of participation in social life . In terms of residential environment ( leefomgeving ) , the district was vulnerable , the problem being a lack of suitable housing .

Based on the same indicators and methodology as the previous report , the DATE evaluation report concluded that the housing permit system should be continued in GPE and CARDINAL other areas ( including CARDINAL in which it had been introduced in the meantime , in DATE ) ; discontinued in CARDINAL others ; and introduced in CARDINAL area where it was not yet in force .

On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG ( Minister PERSON en ORG ) sent a separate evaluation report assessing the effectiveness of GPE since its inception and its effects in practice to ORG of ORG , as required by section CARDINAL of that LAW , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . The Minister ’s covering letter stated the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in order to extend the validity of GPE . Requests to that effect had been received from a number of affected cities . It was noted that not all of the cities concerned had made use of all of the possibilities offered by the LAW ; in particular , only GPE used housing permits to select new residents for particular areas . Appended to the Minister ’s letter was a copy of the DATE evaluation report and a letter from the PERSON and Aldermen of GPE in which they , inter alia , confirmed the desirability of extending the indication of particular areas for applying the housing permit requirement beyond DATE periods : the measure was considered a success , and a DATE programme involving the large - scale improvement of housing and infrastructure ( the “ ORG GPE ” ( ORG , see below ) ) had been started in the southern parts of GPE in DATE .

Both the applicant and the Government have submitted a report entitled “ Evaluation of the effects of LOC , by ORG ; the report is referred to hereafter as the “ ORG report ” ) . This report was commissioned by the Minister of the ORG and ORG , who published it in DATE , to be put before ORG .

NORP The report comprises CARDINAL pages of introduction , CARDINAL pages of analysis and CARDINAL more pages of references and appendices ( tables , methodology , list of interviewees ) . Its conclusion reads , inter alia , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Conclusion

In the study we have distinguished CARDINAL groups : the potentially refused and the reference group . The potentially refused are members of households without any income from work who have been living in the metropolitan area for DATE . On this basis they are not eligible for a housing permit in the designated districts of GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG and GPE . The reference group also has no income from work , but satisfies the residence requirement .

Findings

The excluded group : the potentially refused

More often than the reference group , the potentially refused are young , male and live alone . More often than the reference group , the potentially refused are of non - NORP foreign origin , and much more often , they are from the NORP migrant population . Trends DATE show a strong increase in the proportion of persons among the NORP migrant population , principally from NORP countries like GPE , GPE and GPE .

Effect on the position of the potentially refused on the housing market

The group of the potentially refused tends to move house relatively frequently and during the period covered by this research their mobility increased ( from PERCENT in DATE to PERCENT in DATE ) . This high rate of mobility would appear to be a consequence of the composition of the group ( relatively young persons and small households , often without children ) . After correction for background characteristics , it turns out that new arrivals tend to move more often , and continue to do so after DATE in which they arrive .

Effect on the designated districts : house - moving flows and population composition

Changes in the GPE housing market , including as a result of the LAW , have led to new patterns of spatial distribution of new arrivals without income from work . An analysis of population dynamics confirms that the increase in the proportion of potentially refused is generally the consequence of changed house - moving flows ( and not of any other dynamic such as downward social mobility of the resident population ) .

Designated districts : quality of life and security

Has the application of the measure under LAW had any actual effect on the quality of life and security in the designated areas ?

Based on a ( modified ) Security Index we find that during DATE the designated districts have shown a more negative development in their scores than the other districts of the city . This interrelation has been examined more closely by comparing the development trend in all GPE districts , taking into account the district status and other changes in the housing markets . After these checks have been carried out it still appears that the districts covered by the LAW display a significantly worse development than the other districts of GPE .

In so concluding it must be observed that the LAW is not necessarily the cause of these lagging developments . Changes in city policy , police and justice , education , social assistance , etc . at the neighbourhood , municipal and national level are beyond the scope of this evaluation . These findings do however suggest that the LAW has not contributed to any improvement .

Quality of life elsewhere

What development is seen in districts with a considerable influx of house - movers who do not qualify for a housing permit as regards quality of life and security ?

In sum , it can be stated that there is a slight negative interrelation between changes in the influx of the potentially refused and the quality of life and security of the neighbourhoods . This interrelation is , however , not uniform and the causal link is not firmly established . Although the potentially refused can cause a deterioration of the quality of life and security in a neighbourhood , the interrelation may also point the other way . Because of their weak and deteriorating position on the housing market , the potentially refused will generally be limited to districts where there is a relative decline in quality of life and security . ”

On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG ( on behalf of ORG ) , PERSON on behalf of the municipality of GPE ) , and the presidents of a number of LOC boroughs ( deelgemeenten ) , social housing bodies and educational institutions signed the ORG Leap GPE ” . This document noted the social problems prevalent in LOC inner - city areas , which it was proposed to address by providing improved opportunities for education and economic activity and improving , or if need be replacing housing and infrastructure . It was intended to terminate the programme by DATE .

DATE . On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG , GPE ’s PERSON for housing , spatial planning , real property and the city economy ( wethouder PERSON , ruimtelijke ordening , vastgoed en stedelijke economie ) and the presidents of CARDINAL social housing bodies active in GPE signed an “ Agreement concerning a financial impulse for the benefit of the Quality Leap South Rotterdam ( DATE ) ” ( ORG betreffende een financiële impuls CARDINAL behoeve PERSON GPE ( DATE ) ) . This agreement provided for a review of priorities in Government financing of housing and infrastructure projects in the GPE area within existing budgets and for a once - only additional investment of MONEY ( ORG ) . Of the latter sum , ORG CARDINAL had been reserved by the municipality of GPE until DATE ; another EUR CARDINAL would be added for the period starting in DATE . These funds would be used to refurbish or replace CARDINAL homes in GPE . A further ORG CARDINAL would be provided by the Government . The remainder would be spent by the social housing bodies on projects within their respective remit .

On DATE the Government introduced a PERSON proposing to amend LAW ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG DATE , CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . The Explanatory Memorandum stated that its purpose was to empower municipalities to tackle abuses in the private rented housing sector , give municipalities broader powers of enforcement and make further temporal extension of the LAW possible .

The Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) ( Extension ) Act ( Wet uitbreiding Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek ) entered into force on DATE , enabling the designation of particular areas under section CARDINAL of GPE to be extended DATE before it was due to expire . It makes further extensions of the designation possible for successive DATE periods ( section CARDINAL ) of ORG , as amended ) .

With effect from DATE the Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) Act was amended further to enable the selective allotment of housing in order to limit nuisance and criminal behaviour .

On DATE the applicant moved to housing in the municipality of Vlaardingen . This municipality is part of ORG . She rents her dwelling from a Government - funded social housing body .

The applicant states that she has found paid work .

As of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been resident in ORG for DATE . She therefore became entitled to reside in CARDINAL of the areas designated under LOC ( LAW regardless of her sources of income .

The Government state that no renovation or building permits were sought for the dwelling in A. Street inhabited by the applicant at the time of the events complained of DATE and that no such permit was applied for in the period prior to DATE either .

DATE only the municipality of GPE made full use of the possibilities which LOC offered . In DATE and DATE , CARDINAL other municipalities followed suit ( ORG , GPE aan den IJssel and PERSON , the latter CARDINAL being part of ORG ) .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Iain Thorburn Cameron;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant is a NORP national born in DATE . He lives in PERSON .

The applicant suffered for DATE from , inter alia , pain in his back and legs and numbness in his right arm . He alternated between full and part - time sick leave from DATE . In DATE he received a partial early retirement pension and in DATE a full disability pension .

NORP In DATE he applied for life annuity and alleged that his physical problems had been caused by his former employment as a driver ( DATE ) , as a dairy worker ( DATE ) and as a food science technician ( DATE to CARDINAL ) . ORG ( Försäkringskassan ) appointed an in - house specialist in orthopaedic surgery who , in a written statement , concluded that there was not a high degree of probability ( hög grad av sannolikhet ) that any harmful element in the applicant ’s former employment had caused his problems .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG rejected the application . Referring to , inter alia , the specialist statement by the insurance doctor , it was held that the applicant had not been subject to any harmful influences which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused or aggravated his problems .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( förvaltningsrätten ) of GPE . On DATE the court , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG decision in full . The court found that , although it was scientifically known that employees in the food industry had a statistically high risk of injury , the circumstances in the applicant ’s case had to be taken into account . The applicant ’s back problems had appeared after DATE in the industry and he suffered from degenerative changes to his back . Against that background , the medical investigation and other material did not adequately support the conclusion that the applicant , in his work , had been subject to any harmful influences which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused or aggravated his problems .

Upon further appeal to ORG ( kammarrätten ) of GPE , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a medical statement ( epikris ) issued in DATE by ORG , ORG ( ORG for folkhälsa , arbets och miljömedicin ) . According to the medical statement , there were reasons to believe that the applicant ’s work had caused his problems .

NORP In a written statement to the appellate court , ORG questioned the conclusions in the medical statement as they were based on information about exposure which was to a high degree uncertain . Furthermore , there were medical records from DATE in which the applicant was held to be fully able - bodied and in which it was noted that no somatic evidence had been found in support of the applicant ’s symptoms .

On DATE , ORG granted leave to appeal . The applicant requested an oral hearing in the case but , on DATE , the court rejected the request . It referred to the nature of the case and to the fact that an oral hearing had been held before ORG . The applicant was given the opportunity to submit further observations .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment in full . It first gave an account of the parties’ submissions and the evidence relied upon , including the medical statement of DATE , and then stated the following reasons :

“ The medical and other evidence in the case does not demonstrate that the applicant has been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which could , with a high degree of probability , have caused his problems . His back - related and other problems can thus – as has been found also by ORG and ORG – not be defined as a work - related injury . [ The applicant ] is therefore not entitled to life annuity according to the [ Work LAW ] . The appeal must consequently be rejected . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) . He complained of the lack of reasoning in ORG judgment and argued that that court ’s refusal to hold an oral hearing had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW .

On DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG , complaining that his right to a fair trial under LAW had been infringed because ORG had refused to hold an oral hearing and its judgment had not been sufficiently reasoned .

This application was declared inadmissible by ORG DATE for non - exhaustion of domestic remedies . The ORG found that the applicant had failed to lodge a claim with the Chancellor of ORG ( NORP ) or the ordinary courts to seek compensation for the alleged breaches of LAW v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Consequently , on DATE , the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged breaches of the Convention with the Chancellor of ORG . He argued that ORG lack of reasoning , as well as its refusal to hold an oral hearing , had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW . He requested MONEY ( SEK ) for non - pecuniary damage .

The Chancellor of ORG communicated the case to ORG which submitted that its handling of the case had been in accordance with domestic law as well as the LAW . In response , the applicant maintained , and developed the grounds for , his claim .

On DATE the Chancellor of ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . As concerns the lack of an oral hearing , the Chancellor of ORG noted that ORG and ORG had held an oral hearing and consequently , in accordance with the ORG ’s case - law , a less strict standard applied to the requirement to hold a hearing before the appellate court . Thus , in view of the character of the case and the fact that the applicant had been given the opportunity to finalise his submissions in writing and the court had had access to substantial written evidence , the Chancellor of ORG concluded that there had been no breach of the LAW in this respect .

As concerns ORG alleged lack of reasoning , the Chancellor of ORG referred extensively to the ORG ’s case law on this matter and then made the following evaluation . ORG had , in its judgment , accounted for the applicant ’s arguments and the new evidence he had submitted before it . It had further accounted for the considerations and conclusions drawn from the evidence submitted by the parties , namely , that the investigation in the case did not demonstrate that the applicant had been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused his problems . Thus , the Chancellor of ORG found that ORG had taken a stance on the central and decisive question in the case , that is , whether the applicant had been exposed to harmful influences in his work . While the Chancellor noted that it would have been preferable , for pedagogical reasons , for the court to have given clearer grounds for why the applicant ’s evidence had not been sufficient , she concluded that the reasoning was not so deficient that the applicant ’s right to a fair trial under LAW had been infringed .

At the relevant time , provisions on work injuries were set out in the Work Injury Insurance Act ( Lag ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om arbetsskadeförsäkring ) , which covered all people working in GPE . A person whose ability to earn an income had been impaired due to a work - related injury was in some specified situations eligible for life annuity ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . The term “ work - related injury ” referred to injuries resulting from accidents or other harmful effects at work . “ Other harmful effect ” meant the influence of a factor that with a high degree of probability might cause the kind of injury suffered ( LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . If an insured person had suffered an accident or another harmful effect , the injury was to be considered to have been caused by the harmful effect , if that causal link was highly probable ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . The standard of proof was somewhat mitigated on DATE , but that amendment did not apply to the applicant ’s case .

NORP The administration of justice before the administrative courts is regulated by ORG , ORG ) . According to CARDINAL of the LAW , the determination of a case by a court must be based on what is contained in the documents and what has otherwise been established in the case . The decision must state the reasons that determined the outcome .