Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person;Defence through legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE . At the time when the application was submitted , the applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE , GPE .

NORP In DATE a group of individuals transported a considerable quantity ( possibly QUANTITY ) of hashish ( which in the GPE is a banned substance ) from one hiding - place to another . It appears that the possessors of the hashish later found some of it missing and came to the conclusion that it had been removed by CARDINAL PERSON In DATE PERSON ’s body was found dumped at a building site , with the hands tied behind the back , CARDINAL ribs broken and holes in the knees and kneecaps consistent with the deliberate infliction of injury by means of an electric drill .

The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of having been criminally involved in the above events and taken into pre - trial detention . Throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings he claimed to be innocent .

The applicant was charged with causing PERSON grievous bodily harm resulting in his death , the abduction of PERSON resulting in his death , threatening grievous bodily harm against PERSON , and importing , transporting and possessing QUANTITY of hashish . His trial opened on DATE before ORG ( rechtbank ) .

The prosecution sought an DATE prison sentence .

After adjournments made necessary by the need for further investigative measures , ORG gave judgment on CARDINAL DATE . It did not find it established that the abduction had resulted in PERSON ’s death and acquitted the applicant of that aggravating circumstance , but convicted the applicant of the remainder of the crimes charged , finding him to have committed them together with others . It sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed .

The appeal hearing opened on DATE before ORG ( gerechtshof ) . Finding that the file was incomplete , ORG adjourned the hearing sine die in view of its busy hearing schedule . Further adjournments were ordered , on the same ground , on DATE and DATE . On DATE an adjournment was ordered on the ground that no suitable hearing room was available .

ORG held a scheduling hearing ( regiezitting ) on DATE . CARDINAL more adjournments were ordered , CARDINAL until DATE for the purpose of securing the attendance of further witnesses and CARDINAL until DATE to allow the applicant ’s new counsel , who had replaced the lawyer who had conducted the applicant ’s defence at first instance , to acquaint himself with the case file . At the hearing of DATE it was decided that the hearing on the merits of the case would be held on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released , having served CARDINAL of the sentence handed to him by ORG .

The hearing was resumed on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was in attendance . Since further witnesses were to be heard by the investigating judge at the request of the defence , a further adjournment was ordered until CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ; the applicant and his counsel were cautioned to be present without further notice .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of having imported “ a considerable quantity of narcotic substances ” . The applicant ’s counsel informed ORG of this development by fax on DATE .

The hearing was again resumed on DATE . The applicant ’s counsel stated that the applicant was in pre - trial detention in GPE . He asked for the applicant to be brought to the GPE DATE before the following hearing so as to consult with him .

On DATE the applicant received a summons at his detention address in GPE to appear at the hearing of ORG to be held on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel sent an e - mail to the Advocate General ( advocaat - generaal ) to ORG , with a copy to the president of the criminal division , restating his request for the applicant to be brought to the GPE in advance of the hearing of ORG and announced his intention to oppose resumption of the hearing if this were not done .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel informed ORG by e - mail of his intention to seek an adjournment of the coming hearing . On DATE the president of the criminal division warned the applicant ’s counsel and ORG by e - mail , without prejudging any decision that might be taken , of the possibility that the merits of the case would be addressed .

The hearing was resumed on DATE . The official record of the hearing makes mention of the applicant ’s place of detention , namely FAC ( GPE Fengsel ) , GPE , GPE .

The applicant ’s counsel asked for the hearing to be adjourned until the applicant could be present in person . He suggested that this might be done pursuant to an extradition request ; by way of transfer under LAW , which possibility in his submission had not been adequately explored ; and , following the outcome of the criminal proceedings in GPE , by allowing the applicant either to return of his own accord or to serve any sentence handed to him by the NORP courts in the GPE as the case might be .

ORG declined to adjourn its hearing until the applicant could be present . Its reasoning , reflected in the official record of its hearing , was as follows :

“ If a request is made to adjourn the hearing on the merits all relevant interests should be weighed , including the right of the accused to be present , the interest of not only the accused but also of society in a speedy determination of the charges and the interest of a proper organisation of the judicial system . In so doing , the court of ORG will base itself on the following facts and circumstances :

- The present case began in DATE . The applicant was arrested on DATE and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment by ORG on DATE . The [ applicant ] took part in the proceedings . The [ applicant ] appealed against this judgment and the first appeal hearing took place on DATE .

- The [ applicant ] was released on DATE .

- It was not possible to hold the hearing on the merits on DATE as planned because the investigating judge had not finished hearing witnesses .

- On DATE the applicant ’s counsel transmitted the information that the [ applicant ] had been arrested in GPE on DATE on suspicion of having violated LAW of LAW , to wit , unlawfully importing a large quantity of narcotic substances . The [ applicant ] was to remain in pre - trial detention until DATE . The hearing on the merits could therefore not be held on DATE , DATE and DATE as planned and was moved to CARDINAL and DATE .

- The [ applicant ] has therefore brought it on himself that he can not now attend the appeal hearing independently ( dat hij niet zelfstandig tegenwoordig kan zijn bij zijn berechting in QUANTITY beroep ) .

- The [ applicant ] has indicated , following his arrest , that he wishes to attend the appeal hearing .

- The Advocate General has , on DATE , drafted a request for mutual assistance , in consultation with ORG and GPE ( ORG Noordwest en GPE ) ( ... ) requesting the NORP authorities to transfer the [ applicant ] to the GPE temporarily under LAW .

- The NORP public prosecutor replied on DATE that the [ applicant ] ’s temporary transfer was not possible because GPE had entered a reservation relevant to LAW [ of LAW ] . The request for temporary transfer would have to be made via ORG .

- The Advocate General has , on DATE , prepared a draft request for mutual legal assistance setting out the request to the NORP authorities to transfer the [ applicant ] to the GPE under LAW [ of LAW ] .

- On DATE the head of ORG ( afdeling ORG in ORG ) of ORG informed ORG that LAW [ of LAW ] provides only for the possibility to transfer temporarily as witnesses or for purposes of confrontation . Temporary transfer of an accused for trial requires extradition or surrender procedure ( uitleverings- of overleveringsprocedure ) to be followed , in which case there must be a valid GPE title for detention .

- The Advocate General prepared a draft extradition request on DATE .

- On DATE the head of ORG informed the Advocate General that it was not possible to request the [ applicant ] ’s extradition from GPE because there was no GPE title for his detention . This means that CARDINAL of the documents referred to in LAW ( a ) is missing . The ultimate conclusion is that since neither extradition nor temporary transfer within the meaning of mutual assistance in criminal matters ( kleine rechtshulp ) is possible , there is no possibility to allow the [ applicant ] to attend the hearing in his criminal case on DATE .

- Counsel and [ applicant ] have had sufficient time to prepare the defence before the hearing on the merits [ planned for ] CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , which hearing was postponed until CARDINAL , DATE and DATE only shortly before [ it was due to begin ] . Counsel has also had the opportunity to discuss the case with the [ applicant ] and prepare for the hearing before those new hearing dates . It does not make any difference that the [ applicant ] was arrested in GPE on DATE . Moreover , in DATE counsel visited the [ applicant ] in GPE to prepare DATE ’s hearing , it being worth noting in this connection that it is open to [ counsel ] in consultation with the [ applicant ] himself to make use of [ this possibility ] more frequently , the NORP authorities having imposed no restrictions in this respect .

- Counsel has been explicitly authorised ( uitdrukkelijk gemachtigd ) to defend the [ applicant ] at the hearing .

ORG considers , in these circumstances , that in weighing the various interests against each other the general interest , including due process ( het belang van een behoorlijke rechtspleging ) and the interest of bringing the case to a close within a reasonable time must now prevail over the [ applicant ] ’s right to take part in the hearing in person . ... ”

The hearing was continued on DATE . The applicant ’s counsel conducted the defence in the applicant ’s absence .

The Court of Appeal gave judgment on DATE . It convicted the applicant of complicity in causing grievous bodily harm resulting in death , abduction and transporting and possessing an unspecified quantity of hashish . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG ( PERSON ) . He complained of a violation of his right to attend the hearing in person as a result of ORG refusal to order an adjournment until he could be present . His arguments were the following :

Firstly , the starting point should be that an accused had the right to attend the hearing in his case in person ; as long as he did not waive that right , he was in principle entitled to an adjournment if he was prevented from so doing . This starting point was not reflected in ORG reasoning .

Secondly , it did not appear that ORG had considered the seriousness of the charges . Considering the charges in issue , and the sentence imposed on appeal ( which added years to the sentence imposed at first instance ) , ORG decision was misconceived .

Thirdly , the presence of counsel and the length of the proceedings , relied on by ORG , were irrelevant . The length of proceedings in particular would be imputable to the suspect if an adjournment was requested by the defence .

Fourthly , ORG had failed to respond to the suggestion made by the defence to await the outcome of the proceedings in GPE , after which the applicant could return of his own accord or the execution of any NORP sentence could be taken care of in the GPE , thus enabling the applicant ’s attendance .

Fifthly , ORG had failed to explain why “ due process and the interest of bringing the case to a close within a reasonable time ” were given priority over the applicant ’s attendance rights on DATE given that those interests had never previously stood in the way of an adjournment of the case .

The Advocate General ( advocaat - generaal ) to ORG submitted an advisory opinion ( conclusie ) in which he expressed the view that , in the light of Article CARDINAL taken together with LAW ) , ORG had been called upon to decide whether the interest of the examination of the case at the hearing required the hearing to be adjourned . The advisory opinion continues ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . [ In the light of the principle stated , ORG findings ] do not reflect an incorrect understanding of the law ; nor , in view of the following , is it incomprehensible . ORG has established as fact that [ its own ] Advocate General has made several unsuccessful attempts to have the suspect – who is detained in GPE DATE transferred to the GPE so that he can exercise his right to attend the hearing in person . This finding implies that ORG has considered the question whether it was possible for the suspect to be placed at its disposal for the purposes of the appeal but has answered it in the negative . Moreover , it does not appear likely that the applicant will return to the GPE shortly after the end of the criminal proceedings in GPE and will be able to appear at a further hearing . Contrary to what is argued by the drafter of the ground of appeal , ORG therefore sufficiently examined the possibilities of mutual legal assistance . The fact that ORG did not react in so many words to counsel ’s suggestion that the outcome of the NORP criminal proceedings should be awaited does not change this . After all , in refusing to order an adjournment ORG is not bound to answer every detail of the argument explicitly . [ The sentence reflecting the decision that all parts of the request had been refused ] was sufficient . That also implies the refusal to await the outcome of the NORP criminal proceedings , so that the suspect would be able to attend the hearing in the GPE by his own means or by way of transfer of the execution of the NORP sentence , if any .

Furthermore , the suspect appeared at the first instance hearings alongside his counsel , in addition to several appeal hearings which he attended together with his counsel . It follows that the suspect had the opportunity to exercise his right to attend hearings and state his version of events to a court , notwithstanding the fact that the merits of the case were not dealt with at the appeal hearings referred to . The summonses for the appeal hearing on DATE at which hearing the suspect did not appear – were served in accordance with the law . Moreover , the defence could be conducted at this hearing on the applicant ’s behalf by the applicant ’s counsel , as in fact was the case .

In addition , ORG adjourned its examination of the case at the appeal hearing of DATE already , at the request of counsel , because of the suspect ’s detention in GPE . The examination of the case at the hearing in appeal had been adjourned CARDINAL times already , whereas the appeal proceedings lasted DATE in total . The criminal acts with which the applicant was charged were committed in DATE [ the drugs crimes ] and DATE [ the crimes against the person of E. ] respectively , so that at the time of the appeal hearing of DATE at which hearing the request for an adjournment was made DATE and DATE had already passed . Finally , in the cases of the co - suspects , which were dealt with simultaneously with [ the present case ] but not joined with it , CARDINAL of them , PERSON , did appear at that hearing .

Contrary to the argument made by the drafter of the point of appeal , ORG was under no obligation to consider the seriousness of the charges against the applicant in deciding on the request for an adjournment but it was at liberty to consider the presence of counsel authorised to conduct the defence and the length of the criminal proceedings .

The limpidity of ORG reasoning is not impaired by ORG reliance , in refusing the request for an adjournment , on due process and the interest of bringing the case to a close within a reasonable time , even though these arguments supposedly did not stand in the way of adjournments of earlier appeal hearings . I note in this connection that the adjournments , from DATE , were connected , at least in part , with the need to ensure due process : the hearing of witnesses and the realisation of the suspect ’s right to attend the hearing in person . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law on summary reasoning .

It would appear that the applicant returned to the GPE at some time in DATE .

The applicant served the remainder of the sentence given by ORG . He was released on DATE .

On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of drugs offences and sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG of Appeal reduced the prison sentence to DATE . It appears from the judgment that on DATE the applicant had been caught red - handed importing QUANTITY of cannabis . This judgment became final on DATE .


CASE OF ÄRZTEKAMMER FÜR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The first applicant organisation is ORG ( PERSON für GPE ) . The ORG represents all medical practitioners in GPE and also has its own website . The second applicant was the ORG ’s president at the time of the events .

On DATE the second applicant published a letter on the first applicant organisation ’s website , which was addressed to all members of ORG in GPE and was also sent out to all of them via e - mail . The letter was titled “ GPE funds want to take over medical practices ” ( “ LOC wollen PERSON übernehmen ” ) . The second applicant went on to state that he had been forced to write to his colleagues for a serious reason , namely , because it had been reported in the media that the F. company planned to go into “ the radiology business ” . He added that share - bidding companies planned to offer medical services – initially in the area of radiology , but soon enough in other areas of the profession as well and that doctors risked becoming mere employees of such “ locust ” companies . If they would not act according to the ORG wishes , they would be dismissed . The second applicant then explained the assumed legal and organisational basis of such a plan : radiology services which were currently being provided by medical practices could , in future , also be offered by limited companies . Shares of those companies could then be bought by the F. company , and the “ locusts ” would reach their goal , namely control of the medical profession . Giving an example of a risky development , the second applicant stated that in DATE , colleagues had founded laboratories which had reciprocal agreements with certain health insurance boards . DATE , almost all of those laboratories were owned by the PERSON group , which , in turn , was owned by insurance companies , investment funds and foundations , and which employed a large number of doctors . The second applicant ended his letter by stating that he could guarantee CARDINAL thing : that the ORG professional representative body would make use of all legal and political means available to stop such a disastrous development from going ahead , to prevent that the quality of medical treatment being determined by “ managers and controllers ” and to ensure , inter alia , that existing medical practices were protected from the competition from “ international locust funds ” ( “ internationale LOC ” ) .

On DATE the F. company lodged an action against the CARDINAL applicants and an application for an injunction with ORG ( ORG ) . The applicants contested the application .

On DATE ORG issued an injunction prohibiting the applicants ( each of them individually ) from repeating the statement that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties , in particular medical professionals . The injunction prevented the applicants from referring to the F. company as a “ locust ” , “ locust company ” or “ locust fund ” . The applicants were further prohibited from stating that the provision of services by the F. company , particularly services in the area of radiology , was a disastrous development . The court found that there was a competitive relationship between the F. company and the applicants , and found the statements made by the applicants to be defamatory under LAW of LAW and unethical under LAW ( Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren GPE ) .

The applicants appealed against the injunction . On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) partly granted the appeal , and prohibited the applicants from alleging that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties and medical practitioners , and from calling it , inter alia , a “ locust company ” . However , it dismissed the F. company ’s application to prohibit the applicants from calling its provision of services a “ disastrous ” development . ORG found that the first applicant organisation had locus standi in the injunction proceedings . ORG held official authority status in relation to certain areas of its work ( Bereich der Hoheitsverwaltung ) , in addition to representing the interests of its members ; it was therefore considered a legal entity under LAW ( Amtshaftungsgesetz ) . However , when acting as a special interest group , it represented its ORG interests from a mainly economic perspective , rather than acting in its capacity as an official authority . According to ORG , the letter in issue pursued the interests of the ORG ’s members , outside the ORG ’s official sphere of activity .

The Court of Appeal further established , referring inter alia to ORG , that the term “ locust company “ ( “ Heuschreckenunternehmen “ ) was introduced into the political discussion in NORP speaking countries in DATE by Mr PERSON , a NORP politician , and is ever since used in political debates as a pejorative term for private - equity companies or other forms of capital funds with short - term or exaggerated return expectations – like hedge funds or „ vulture “ funds , which also had negative connotations . The domestic court found that there was a need to balance the interests involved in the present debate , reiterating that extreme opinions were only unlawful if they were excessive . As a result of that balancing exercise , ORG found that the “ locust ” statement had to be considered a lawful criticism in the context of a public debate , and that the F. company could therefore not base its claim on LAW . However , ORG classified the ORG actions as competitive in nature . Statements of fact made in violation of LAW could not be justified by the right to freedom of expression . ORG found that NORP law provided wideranging protection for commercial and economic interests . Those who published an opinion in an economically competitive context were obliged to exercise a higher level of diligence with regard to the facts and bases of their allegations than those who acted in the non - competitive context of a public debate of general interest . Therefore , ORG upheld the injunction decision with regard to the statements about the “ locust company ” .

NORP However , as regards the further statement , namely that provision of certain services by the F. company was a “ disastrous development ” , ORG found that , read in context , the statement indicated a general assessment and did not refer to a particular service of the F. company . It was therefore to be considered a personal opinion , and thus a value judgment that was not defamatory under LAW . It also did not fall under section CARDINAL of LAW .

The applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal . It acknowledged the applicants’ argument that where a competitor , even for economic purposes , took part in a debate of public interest , freedom of expression had to hold more weight in the balancing test . However , ORG observed that the applicants had made their statement in the clearly economic context of competition between medical practitioners and companies which provided the same services . The applicants could have warned their members of the possible risks of cooperating with companies without overstepping the margin of acceptable criticism . However , the applicants had exceeded that limit and stated that the F. company was a “ locust ” . That statement was CARDINAL of fact , and the applicants had not provided evidence of a factual basis for their allegations , and had therefore exceeded the permissible limitations of freedom of expression .

On DATE the ORG gave its judgment in the substantive proceedings and ordered the applicants to refrain from : repeating the statement that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties , in particular medical practitioners and patients ; and stating that the F. company was a “ locust company ” , a “ locust fund ” or a “ locust ” . It further ordered the applicants to publish and display the operative part of the judgment on the first applicant organisation ’s website for DATE , and to publish it in the first applicant organisation ’s print newsletter .

ORG made substantial reference to ORG reasoning in the interim injunction proceedings . It followed the previous finding that the relevant statements did not constitute defamation pursuant to LAW . Examining the statements in relation to the provisions of LAW , ORG found that the letter had been written by ORG in a commercial and not a political context . It had also had the advancement of independent medical practices as an objective , and had contained a warning regarding capital ventures which allegedly threatened ORG independence . ORG found the relevant comparisons with “ locusts ” to be statements of fact regarding both the F. company and its conduct in relation to third parties , doctors and patients . The statements were also likely to damage the F. company ’s commercial interests , and had not been proved to be true .

The used language could also not be justified with a reference to the right to freedom of expression as the statement was uttered within the framework of a commercial competitive relationship . With reference to the ORG ’s case - law allowing for a wider margin of appreciation under LAW with regard to commercial language , ORG observed that a competitor was required to be more diligent in the context of commercial communication among competitors . The term “ locust ” was almost exclusively loaded with negative meaning , which led to the unethical general vilification of a competitor . The applicants were therefore prohibited from using that statement in relation to the F. company , pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as unfounded . It referred to the extensive reasoning given in the interim injunction proceedings and added that , according to the case - law of ORG , the test used to verify whether a statement was covered by the right to freedom of expression required the assessment of whether a factual basis for such a statement existed ; if a competitor participated in a public debate of general interest , freedom of expression had more weight with regard to the assessment of the statement than in the context of purely commercial communication . The greater the public interest in being properly informed and the less the statement related to commercial interests , the more the statement would be protected by LAW . In the present case , there was no doubt that there was an ongoing public debate ; however , the commercial interests of the applicants had very much been in the foreground of the communicated statement itself .

The applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law against that judgment , which was rejected by ORG on DATE . ORG found that the applicants had not only called the F. company a “ locust ” , but had also reproached this company for negative conduct , such as dominating doctors , dismissing doctors who did not act in accordance with company wishes , and focusing on economic factors rather than the welfare of patients ( “ Herrschaft über den ärztlichen Berufstand , PERSON spurender ” GPE , PERSON an ökonomischen ORG und damit nicht am PERSON der Patienten ” ) . Therefore , the expression used had turned into a statement of fact , giving the reader the impression that the F. company had already demonstrated unethical conduct which threatened upon by the lower courts was justified . Even though the applicants had taken part in a debate of general public interest , an untrue and damaging statement of fact was not protected by freedom of expression . Furthermore , the issuing of warnings concerning the potential risks of the provision of medical services by companies was not , as such , prohibited by the decisions of the NORP courts ; the applicants had only been required to refrain from making untrue statements of fact in respect of their competitors .

The decision of ORG was served on the ORG counsel on DATE .


CASE OF NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA

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

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

NORP The applicant company , an editorial and publishing house registered in GPE , edits and publishes a national newspaper with a circulation of CARDINAL , ORG ( “ the newspaper ” ) . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON , a nuclear cruise missile submarine of ORG ( “ the Kursk ” ) , while in LOC on a naval training exercise , sank as a result of explosions on board . Most of the crew died within TIME of the explosions . However , twentythree crew members ( of the CARDINAL aboard ) survived the explosions and gathered in a stern compartment . They wrote a note to report the events . All of these CARDINAL men died on board the Kursk before the arrival of a rescue team .

The Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office launched an official investigation into the accident under LAW of LAW ( a provision on “ a breach of safety procedures while using a means of transportation which causes the death of CARDINAL or more persons by negligence ” ) in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( “ the investigation ” ) .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office terminated the investigation for lack of evidence of a crime .

On DATE GPE , counsel for the relatives of the deceased members of the Kursk crew , challenged the decision to terminate the investigation before ORG . On DATE his complaint was dismissed . PERSON challenged both decisions in court .

On DATE ORG of the Moscow Garrison confirmed the decision of DATE . On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

DATE the applicant company published in the newspaper a number of articles written by the second applicant covering the Kursk catastrophe and the investigation into it .

NORP In late CARDINAL GPE lodged an application before the ORG on behalf of GPE , the father of GPE , lieutenant - captain of the Kursk , alleging a violation of PERSON ’s right to life .

On DATE , in issue no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the newspaper published an article written by the second applicant entitled “ The Kursk case is now before the ORG ” ( “ ‘ Дело ‘ Курска’ - в ORG суде ” – “ the first article ” ) .

The first article reported that PERSON had lodged an application before the ORG alleging a violation of LAW . It described PERSON as the person who had written the note stating that CARDINAL men had survived the explosions and had been waiting for rescue in the stern compartment . The note had been discovered in DATE . According to the first article , the note refuted the official version that all crew members had died as a result of the explosions . The first article stated that after the Kursk had sunk a series of knocks making an ORG signal in PERSON code had been audible from the stern part of the submarine . NORP officials , including the then ORG , had refused to consider those knocks a plea for rescue , and had established that the noise had originated outside the stern part of the submarine . PERSON had unsuccessfully tried to prove in courts that the omission to consider the knocks an ORG signal amounted to an abuse of public office ( “ должностное преступление ” ) . His complaints had been rejected by ORG and ORG . In particular , the first article read as follows :

“ PERSON , the father of PERSON , and his counsel PERSON have repeatedly tried to prove in NORP courts that this [ failure to characterise the noise as an ORG signal ] is absurd and [ constitutes ] an abuse of public office , the purpose of which is to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility .

The abuse of public office , according to the claimants , was perpetrated not only by investigators of ORG , but also by experts , PERSON and PERSON The reports by those CARDINAL military officials ( ORG is the chief forensic expert of ORG , PERSON is the chief navigating officer of ORG ) were relied upon by the investigators , headed by ORG and GPE , who terminated the criminal case in relation to the Kursk catastrophe and delivered a decision refusing to prosecute CARDINAL officers of ORG . ”

On DATE , in issue no . CARDINAL of DATE , the newspaper published another article by the second applicant entitled “ The prosecutor ’s office is worried about the prospect of the Kursk case being examined by ORG . All reasonable offers welcome ? ” ( “ PERSON суда по ‘ делу “ Курска ” ‘ взволновали прокуратуру. GPE уместен ? ” – “ the second article ” ) . The second article described ORG reaction to GPE ’s lodging the application . It reported that ORG prosecutor had tried to persuade PERSON that his counsel had lodged the application exclusively for the purposes of self - promotion . PERSON had reportedly stated that his client had been willing to cooperate with the prosecutors , and had implied that PERSON had received an offer to have the official investigation reopened in exchange for the withdrawal of his application to the ORG . In particular , the second article read as follows :

“ GPE , counsel who represents the CARDINAL families of the deceased crew members , has also confirmed that the application before ORG was the last resort . There was no other prospect of success for the Kursk case in GPE , owing to the position adopted by GPE , ORG , and GPE , ORG . Apparently , those CARDINAL officials took a decision to help the officers in command of the ORG escape criminal responsibility and to terminate the investigation . ( GPE has written about this in his book ‘ It has sunk ... The truth about the Kursk hidden by ORG ) . ”

After the publication of the CARDINAL articles , PERSON , the chief forensic expert of ORG , ORG , the head of an investigative group within ORG in charge of the Kursk investigation , FAC , ORG of GPE , and ORG of GPE as a legal entity lodged civil actions for defamation against the applicants with ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . Each claimant sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage and the retraction of certain statements appearing in the articles .

V.K. sought the retraction of the following statement :

“ ... this is ... an abuse of public office , the purpose of which is to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility . The abuse of public office ... was perpetrated not only by investigators of ORG , but also by experts ... ”

A.E. insisted that his reputation as the head of the investigative group in charge of the Kursk case had been tarnished by the following text :

The Chief Military Prosecutor ’s Office and its head , GPE , sought to have the following parts of the articles retracted :

“ There was no other prospect of success for the Kursk case in GPE , owing to the position adopted by GPE , ORG , and GPE , ORG . Apparently , those CARDINAL officials took a decision to help the officers in command of the ORG escape criminal responsibility and to terminate the investigation . ”

On DATE and DATE ORG joined the proceedings instituted by GPE , ORG , GPE and ORG .

On DATE an expert linguist of ORG of ORG , at the applicant company ’s request , delivered an expert report on the impugned articles . The expert concluded that it was possible to perceive the texts as the reported opinions of GPE and GPE , and not those of the journalist .

On DATE ORG decided the case . It found that it had been established that the newspaper had indeed disseminated information concerning the claimants . It further found that the information in question was damaging to the claimants’ reputation for the following reasons . The allegations that investigators and experts had tried to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility had suggested that these officials had lacked the requisite impartiality when performing their duties . ORG found the expression “ to help escape criminal responsibility ” defamatory , as it contained an allegation of criminal conduct . The applicants had failed to provide evidence that the claimants had committed a crime . ORG dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicants’ reference to the fact that the second article had merely reproduced GPE ’s position as reflected in his book . Furthermore , ORG reasoned that the applicants had been under an obligation to verify the truthfulness of the information before publishing it . It dismissed the ORG assertion that the impugned statements amounted to value judgments . ORG found in the PERSON favour , ordered the retraction of the statements concerning the claimants’ involvement in an abuse of public office , and awarded each claimant CARDINAL and MONEY ( RUB – CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) , to be paid by the applicant company and the second applicant respectively . To reimburse court fees , the applicant company was ordered to pay RUB CARDINAL and the second applicant was ordered to pay RUB CARDINAL to each claimant .

In so far as relevant , ORG judgment read as follows :

“ ... assessing the impugned statements , the court considers that they contain affirmations that ORG , ORG , GPE and investigators of ORG broke the NORP law which was in force and committed an abuse of public office , and that such statements tarnish the honour , dignity and business reputation of GPE , ORG , [ and ] GPE , as well as the business reputation of ORG as an agency performing , in the name of GPE , ORG functions of supervision with regard to respect for LAW and laws in force within the NORP territory .

The defendants have failed to produce any evidence to prove the veracity of the disseminated statements that the claimants abused public office and adopted unlawful decisions .

Looking into the defendant ’s claim that the impugned articles reflect the opinion of ... GPE , ... expressed in his complaint before ORG and his book “ It has sunk . The truth about the Kursk hidden by ORG ” , the court finds as follows .

... page CARDINAL of the book by GPE ... contains the following text : “ I think that the final decision not to find commanders of ORG criminally liable was taken by ... , GPE and ... ”

In view of the above , comparing the impugned statements of the article ... and the text of the book , the court considers that the meaning of the phrase “ to take a decision not to find [ somebody ] criminally liable ” is not equivalent to the phrase “ to take a decision to help [ somebody ] escape criminal responsibility ” .

The complaint ... lodged by GPE before ORG ... does not contain statements alleging that the claimants committed an abuse of public office .

Furthermore , the defendants’ arguments that ... the editorial department and the author of the articles are not the authors of [ GPE ’s ] statements can not serve as grounds to absolve a mass media outlet and a journalist of responsibility , in view of the following .

Under section DATE of ... FAC , a journalist must verify the truthfulness of the information he communicates , and LAW sets out an exhaustive list of grounds for absolving an editorial department , an editor - in - chief , or a journalist of responsibility for disseminating untruthful statements that tarnish the honour and dignity of individuals and organisations ...

The court can not accept as grounds to dismiss the [ defamation ] action the defendants’ arguments that the impugned statements are opinions , value judgments that could not be retracted under LAW , for the following reasons .

Under LAW , freedom of thought and expression , as well as the right to protect one ’s honour and good name , are recognised and guaranteed ... At the same time , the realisation of the rights and freedoms of an individual and citizen should not breach the rights and freedoms of other citizens .

In view of the LAW ’s provisions , freedom of thought and expression guaranteed by the LAW should not serve as an instrument to violate the honour and dignity of others .

Therefore , expression by a journalist of his opinion on any topic , or the publication of an opinion by another person does not give grounds to absolve [ the journalist ] of responsibility where damage has been unlawfully inflicted on the values protected by LAW and LAW of GPE , [ such as ] honour , dignity and the business reputation of an individual . ”

The applicants appealed , arguing in particular that the information contained in the impugned articles amounted to value judgments , and that the articles had reflected the opinions of GPE and GPE , opinions expressed in the former ’s application to the ORG and the latter ’s book .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG judgment in full . In particular , it reasoned “ the defendants have not submitted evidence of the veracity of the disseminated statements , [ while ] the claimants have provided evidence proving that they did not commit the actions mentioned in the disseminated statements . ”

The applicants also unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review .

On DATE ORG issued CARDINAL writs of execution against the applicant company in V.K ’s favour . The first writ contained an order to publish a retraction , and the second one ordered the applicant company to pay ORG RUB CARDINAL .

On DATE the bailiffs’ service received the writs and commenced enforcement proceedings .

NORP The newspaper published the retraction regarding PERSON in its issue of DATE .

On DATE the applicant company transferred RUB CARDINAL to the bailiffs’ bank account to be paid to GPE

On DATE the bailiffs’ service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the applicant company in respect of the retraction .

On DATE the second applicant transferred RUB CARDINAL to the bailiffs’ bank account to be paid to GPE

On DATE the bailiffs’ service initiated enforcement proceedings against the applicants on the basis of writs of execution in ORG ’s favour . They ordered the applicant company and the second applicant to pay RUB CARDINAL and RUB CARDINAL respectively .

On DATE the applicant company transferred to the bailiffs’ bank account RUB CARDINAL on its own behalf and RUB CARDINAL on behalf of the second applicant , to be paid to ORG


Violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his conviction , in GPE .

On DATE a country house which belonged to a district prosecutor was set on fire .

On DATE F. confessed that the applicant had conspired with him to set fire to the prosecutor ’s DATE house . On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was released on DATE on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence .

On DATE I. and A. stabbed F. to death .

On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having organised PERSON ’s murder . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of arson . On DATE the applicant ’s conviction became final .

On DATE a local newspaper , ORG , published an article under the headline ‘ Vengeance’ . According to the article , the applicant had stood for local elections . However , he had been disqualified by a court at the request of the district prosecutor . The applicant had plotted revenge . He had paid PERSON to set fire to the prosecutor ’s country house . The house had completely burned down . When questioned by the investigator , PERSON had confessed to arson and had testified against the applicant . Shortly thereafter PERSON had been found stabbed to death . The article then quoted from the official information note issued by the regional prosecutor ’s office :

“ The investigation has established’ , states the information note , ‘ that in DATE [ the applicant ] and F[. ] had an argument ... [ ; ] [ the applicant ] started to fear that he could no longer control F[. ] and that the latter would not only interfere with his plan to protract the trial but would give truthful testimony incriminating him in the arson of [ the prosecutor ’s ] country house ... . [ The applicant ] organised ORG ’s murder to silence him .

The murder was carried out by CARDINAL residents of the town of GPE , who were charged with PERSON ’s murder . ”

According to the applicant , several more articles reporting on the arson and murder cases were published in the local press at around the same time . On DATE a TV programme “ Police unit on duty ” ( Дежурная часть ) broadcast DATE on the federal ORG channel , covered the applicant ’s case .

The jury trial started on DATE . At the beginning of the trial the presiding judge asked the jurors whether they had read about the case in newspapers or heard about it from other sources . All the jurors answered in the negative . They also stated that they had not yet formed any opinion about the defendants’ guilt or innocence .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court examined the prosecution witness PERSON . At the request of the prosecutor , the written statements he had made during the investigation were read out to the jury . PERSON . then explained that his statements to the investigator had been more detailed and precise , as at the time of the investigation he had remembered the events better . The applicant was then allowed to put questions to PERSON . The relevant excerpt from the record reads as follows :

“ [ The applicant asks ] : ‘ How many times were you questioned ? Were your statements to the investigator voluntary?’

The presiding judge rules [ the applicant ’s ] question out of order and warns him that he should not [ raise issues ] of admissibility of evidence in the presence of the jury as it may be considered an attempt to influence the jury .

[ The applicant asks ] : ‘ What state were you in when giving those statements?’

The presiding judge rules [ the applicant ’s ] question out of order and warns him that if he continues to put questions concerning admissibility of evidence he may be excluded from the hearing room .

[ The applicant says ] : ‘ The witness was drunk , the police officers had given him alcohol , he was made [ temporarily ] insane . ”

The presiding judge interrupts [ the applicant ] and directs the jury to disregard [ his ] remarkds about the circumstances in which ORG . was questioned , as this issue is not within the competence of the jury .

[ The applicant continues ] : ‘ All the evidence has been forged and the case does not hold water.’

Taking into account [ the applicant ’s ] repeated attempts to influence the jurors , the presiding judge decides to exclude him from the courtroom .

The presiding judge directs the jurors that they should disregard [ the applicant ’s statements ] ... and should proceed from the understanding that all evidence presented to them ... was collected in accordance with the procedure established by law and was not [ declared inadmissible ] . ”

The trial court continued the hearing in the applicant ’s absence . Further hearings were held on DATE and DATE . The applicant was not brought to the courtroom . All hearings were attended by his counsel . During those hearings several witnesses and the applicant ’s co - defendants testified . CARDINAL of the co - defendants pleaded not guilty , while the other confessed to the murder and stated that he had committed it on the applicant ’s instructions and had received remuneration from him .

The applicant was brought to the courtroom at the end of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE and was allowed to make a closing statement . The applicant pleaded not guilty . The jury delivered a guilty verdict . They found it established that applicant had hired ORG to murder PERSON

The presiding judge indicated in the verdict that ( CARDINAL ) the applicant ’s actions , as established by the jury , should be characterised as incitement to murder , and ( CARDINAL ) the jury had not established that the applicant had been the organiser of the murder or had directed its execution .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed . In particular , he complained that his presumption of innocence had been violated by publications in the press , that he had been removed from the courtroom and that the presiding judge had recharacterised his offence after the jury had delivered the verdict . He also complained that the evidence had been assessed inaccurately and that he had been found guilty of the crime he had not committed .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal . The court noted , in particular , as follows :

“ ... as regards the [ applicant ’s ] removal from the courtroom , [ the appeal court ] finds that the presiding judge ’s decision was in full compliance with [ the applicable rules of criminal procedure ] .

[ The applicant ] repeatedly breached the order in the courtroom and attempted to influence the jurors . The presiding judge repeatedly reprimanded [ the applicant ] , warned him and explained to him the consequences of [ his ] conduct . However , [ the applicant ] chose to ignore [ the warnings ] . Accordingly the decision to remove [ the applicant ] from the courtroom was justified .

In those circumstances , the counsel ’s argument that [ the applicant ’s ] right to participate directly in the examination of the evidence and to defend himself in person was violated is unfounded . [ The applicant ] waived his rights .

[ The applicant ’s ] argument that the publications in the media ... negatively influenced the jurors should be rejected as unfounded .

Before the commencement of the trial all jurors replied in the negative to the question whether they had heard about the case from the media ... .

The GPE actions established in the verdict received the correct legal characterisation .

It was permissible to change the legal characterisation of [ the applicant ’s ] actions from organisation of murder to incitement to murder , as the new legal characterisation was based on the same evidence as established in the verdict . [ The applicant ’s ] defence rights were not violated . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was travelling in a car with DATE who was driving DATE and T. Their car was stopped by the police . Police Officers F. and PERSON asked for their ORG cards . The applicant , who did not have his ORG card on him , was taken to NORP police station in GPE .

The applicant described events at the police station as follows . F. and PERSON had demanded that he stand facing a wall , hands raised , and had searched him . They had allegedly insulted him verbally and physically . In particular , they had punched him repeatedly in the face and the lumbar region and had tried to knock him down .

They then took him to the GPE regional addiction - treatment clinic . When coming out of the police station they were approached by PERSON , PERSON , NORP and NORP , the applicant ’s brother . According to statements by PERSON and NORP , the applicant was depressed , his sweater was dirty and the bridge of his nose was red . I. also saw injuries on the applicant ’s torso when he asked the applicant to lift his sweater .

At TIME a doctor at the addiction - treatment clinic carried out a breath test and tested his coordination . She stated in a record of “ medical examination for establishment of alcohol consumption and state of inebriation ” that the applicant ’s examination had been initiated by Officer PERSON in connection with an administrative offence , and that the applicant had consumed alcohol but had revealed no signs of inebriation . She noted in the part of the record concerning the tested person ’s “ appearance ” that the applicant had no injuries , and in the part concerning “ vegetative - vascular reactions ” that his face was “ hyperemic ” .

According to the applicant , the doctor did not ask him to undress and did not examine his body . Nor was he asked to sign the record of his examination or given its copy .

After the test the applicant was taken back to the police station . At the request of a police officer he signed a statement that at QUANTITY on DATE , when passing by a bus stop in B. ’s car , he had called out through an open window to girls at the bus stop inviting them for a drive in the car . After that a police car had followed them and PERSON had stopped the car . The police officers had ordered him to proceed with them to the police station “ for the reason that he had used foul language ” .

At TIME he was released .

At TIME the applicant was examined at his request by a forensic - medical expert at FAC . The applicant explained that he had been punched and kicked by CARDINAL police officers at TIME DATE . According to the medical report , the applicant had the following injuries : ( i ) an abrasion measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the bridge of the nose , ( ii ) a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY in the area of the right cheekbone , ( iii ) a bruise measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on a finger of the left hand , and ( iv ) a bruise measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the left side of the lumbar region . The expert concluded that the injuries , which were not considered harmful to the applicant ’s health , could have been caused on DATE by hard blunt objects , for example by fists or feet .

On DATE Officer PERSON lodged a criminal complaint that at CARDINAL a.m. on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had sworn at him through an open car window when passing by . In the course of enquiries into the police officer ’s allegations the applicant denied swearing or any other misbehaviour on his part . The GPE police found no elements of criminal offences such as hooliganism ( LAW ) or insult of a public official ( LAW ) in the applicant ’s actions and refused to institute criminal proceedings against him ( decision of CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant complained to the GPE town prosecutor ’s office about the unlawful actions of the police officers , indicating their service identification numbers .

Investigators of the GPE town prosecutor ’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s complaint . Their CARDINAL decisions of DATE and DATE were annulled by their superiors , who considered that the decisions had been based on an incomplete inquiry .

In the most recent refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers , the investigator established the facts as follows , relying on the police ORG statements . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had addressed PERSON and PERSON with foul language from the window of his car , which had stopped near their police car . After that , the car with the applicant had started driving away . PERSON and PERSON had pursued the car and stopped it . They had taken the applicant to the police station . PERSON had explained to the applicant that he had been arrested for having committed a criminal offence under LAW ( insult of a public official ) . On their way to the police station the applicant had behaved provocatively and threatened the police officers that they would have problems at work and would be dismissed . During the applicant ’s escorting to the police station the police officers had not used physical force or any means of restraint . F. and PERSON had taken the applicant from the police station to an addiction - treatment clinic for a medical examination because he had been drunk . Before leaving for the clinic they had been approached by the applicant ’s brother , who had enquired about the reasons for the applicant ’s detention and a further procedure . The applicant ’s brother had suggested that the applicant should have simulated concussion and complained that he had been beaten up by the police officers .

The investigator further noted that the drug - clinic doctor had not recorded any injuries on the applicant ; and that in his statement signed at the police station the applicant had not denied using foul language and had not complained of any use of force or means of restraint against him . The investigator dismissed statements by PERSON and NORP in support of the applicant ’s allegations as unreliable and held that the applicant ’s allegations had not been confirmed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the investigator ’s decision of DATE . It noted that PERSON and PERSON had “ categorically ” denied that they had beaten up the applicant . It held that there was no evidence of the applicant ’s illtreatment at the police station and that his injuries could have been received in “ other circumstances ” . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision on the applicant ’s appeal . It stressed that there had been no eyewitnesses to the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment , and that the applicant had not complained of any ill - treatment to the drug - clinic doctor . Referring to the “ categorical ” denial of any ill - treatment by PERSON and PERSON , ORG held that the applicant had failed to prove his ill - treatment and that he could have received his injuries in “ other circumstances ” on DATE , in a time span between his examination at the addictiontreatment clinic and his examination by the forensic - medical expert .

NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in the Mariy - El Republic .

At TIME on DATE a car without a licence plate , in which the applicant and other young men were going home after a party , was stopped by the traffic police officer . Soon another police car arrived with CARDINAL police officers who , according to the applicant , pushed him and the other young men to the ground , and punched and kicked them . The applicant identified the police officers as QUANTITY , NORP , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

The applicant and the other CARDINAL men were taken to the police station in GPE Toryal , where they arrived at TIME

According to the applicant , the events at the police station were as follows . Police Officers M. , NORP and S. interviewed him , asking who had been driving the car and whether the car had been stolen . The applicant denied that he had been driving the car and stated that the driver had run away and that he did not know him . The police officers repeatedly punched and kicked him in the head and on other parts of his body .

At TIME the applicant and the others were released . The applicant ’s mother met them at the police station and called the ambulance . All CARDINAL men were taken to the emergency unit of ORG , where they were recorded as having injuries .

The applicant was examined at TIME and admitted to the hospital surgical unit in a condition of “ medium seriousness ” at TIME His right ear was swollen and bleeding . He had a swelling on the back of the head measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , numerous bruises on the face and temples , and numerous abrasions on the back , neck , shoulders , the right side of the torso and CARDINAL of his fingers . He had no alcohol on his breath . He was diagnosed with closed craniocerebral injury , brain contusion , traumatic perforation of the right eardrum and numerous contusions to the head and the lumbar region . He was exempted from attending school until DATE due to his temporary disability on account of the closed craniocerebral injury and concussion . The hospital communicated information about the applicant ’s hospitalisation with injuries allegedly received as a result of his illtreatment by police officers to the Novyy Toryal police .

On DATE the GPE Toryal police officers reported to their superior that they had pursued a car which had had no licence plates and had not stopped at their initial order . When the car had eventually stopped , several young men , seemingly drunk , had sworn at them , refused to get into the police car and tried to run away . The police officers had used force to overcome their resistance , managing to restrain them on the ground and search them , and had then taken them to the police station .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor ’s office about the unlawful actions of the police officers . An investigator of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor ’s office carried out a pre - investigation inquiry into her complaint .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic - medical expert from the ORG Toryal division of the ORG . The applicant had bruises around both eyes and an abrasion measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the back of the head . Having examined the applicant ’s hospital records , the expert concluded in a report of DATE that the applicant ’s injuries , notably brain contusion , traumatic perforation of the right eardrum , bruises on the face , abrasions on the head , torso and limbs and swelling in the lumbar region , could have been sustained on DATE by impacts from hard , blunt objects . The injuries had resulted in short - term health issues for the applicant including a temporary incapacity for work lasting DATE , that is to say minor harm to his health .

On DATE the Novyy Toryal police brought administrative proceedings against the applicant , issuing administrative - offence records and a decision which stated that at TIME on DATE the applicant had driven a car without a licence plate and without a driving licence and had not stopped the car on a police officer ’s repeated order . A fine was imposed on the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE a deputy prosecutor of the GPE district prosecutor ’s office decided that material concerning the applicant ’s unlawful driving on DATE should be examined separately from the material concerning the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE the Novyy Toryal police decided that no criminal proceedings should be brought against the applicant , whose actions disclosed no elements of a crime under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( carjacking ) . It found that it had been the applicant who had been driving the car with no licence plates before being stopped by the police on DATE . The applicant had bought it from a third person . However , he had not paid the full price and the previous owner had not given him the documents necessary for reregistering the car in his name and obtaining licence plates .

Investigators of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor ’s office thrice refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions . The refusals were annulled by their superiors , who considered that the inquiry was incomplete .

In the most recent decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator , relying on the police ORG statements , established the facts as follows . During TIME DATE the applicant , who had been driving a car without a licence plate , had disobeyed a traffic policeman ’s order to stop and had tried to escape , thereby violating the traffic rules and committing administrative offences . However , administrative proceedings had not been brought against him in accordance with the law as a result of negligence on the part of the police officers responsible for drawing up administrative - offence records . The police had acted lawfully in apprehending the applicant and taking him to the police station . Officers O. , PERSON GPE , GPE and ORG had lawfully used physical force in the course of the applicant ’s apprehension , as a result of which he had sustained the injuries described in the forensic - medical expert ’s report .

NORP That decision was declared lawful and well - founded by the Novyy Toryal district deputy prosecutor ( report of DATE ) and by ORG ( decision of DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE ) .

On DATE the Mariy - El Republic deputy prosecutor annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unlawful and unfounded and ordered a fresh pre - investigation inquiry .

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON in GPE LOC .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was attending a discotheque at FAC when he was approached by Police Officer PERSON , who led him to the police car and took him to the PERSON district police station . According to the applicant , Police Officer PERSON twisted his arms behind his back when leading him to the car .

According to the applicant the events at the police station were as follows . He was requested to stand facing the wall . PERSON , who wore army - type boots , kicked him CARDINAL times on the legs . Then he was placed in an administrative - detention cell , where he stayed until his release at TIME on DATE .

NORP In reports to their superiors dated DATE CARDINAL Officer PERSON and QUANTITY police trainees stated that at TIME on DATE at GPE the applicant , who had been drunk , had used foul language in their presence , ignoring their orders to stop .

N. , a police officer on duty at the PERSON police station , drew up an administrative - detention record , in which he stated that the applicant , who had committed petty hooliganism , had been subjected to administrative detention for the purpose of the averting the offence . No injuries on the applicant were mentioned in the part of the record concerning the routine procedure of inspection of detainees for injuries . The time of the record was drawn up was indicated as TIME on DATE .

Officer PERSON drew up an administrative - offence record , in which he stated that at TIME on DATE at ORG the applicant , who was drunk , had used foul language and ignored police ORG orders to stop . He had thereby committed an administrative offence of petty hooliganism . The time of the drawing - up the record was indicated as TIME on DATE . The acting head of the PERSON district police issued the applicant a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

After his release from the police station , at TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG , who recorded bruises on the interior of the left calf ( in the upper and middle parts ) , an abrasion on the front of the left shin , a bruise on the left ankle , a bruise on the right knee , a bruise on the left elbow , and an abrasion on the left hand . The applicant was diagnosed with contusions of the left shin , left ankle , right knee and left elbow , and abrasions of the left shin and left hand .

The hospital passed on information about the applicant ’s injuries , allegedly inflicted by the police , to the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office . On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint seeking PERSON ’s prosecution . An investigator of the prosecutor ’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensicmedical expert from the ORG . The applicant had CARDINAL bruises on the interior of the left calf ( in the upper and middle parts ) measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and QUANTITY , a CARDINAL by QUANTITY bruise on the front of the left shin , a CARDINAL by QUANTITY bruise on the left ankle , and a CARDINAL by QUANTITY bruise on the left elbow . He also had an abrasion on the front of the left shin measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , an abrasion on the right ankle measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and an abrasion on the left hand measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . The areas of the back of the left shoulder in the middle part , the left knee , the left shin and the left ankle were painful at palpation . The expert concluded that the injuries , which had not resulted in harm to the applicant ’s health , had been caused by hard blunt objects DATE before the examination , as a result of CARDINAL traumatic impacts ( report of CARDINAL DATE ) . In reply to the investigator ’s additional question as to whether the applicant could have received the injuries when getting into the police car , the expert stated that such a possibility could not be excluded .

The PERSON district police carried out an internal inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , in the course of which PERSON , other police officers and witnesses gave statements about the events in question . On DATE the head of the PERSON district police approved a report on the inquiry in which the facts were established as follows . After TIME on DATE PERSON and CARDINAL police trainees had approached the applicant and rebuked him for using foul language ; he had ignored their commands and continued swearing ; PERSON had ordered that he go with them to the police station but he had refused ; PERSON took him by the sleeve and led him to the police car ; they took the applicant to the police station . It was established that no physical force had been used against the applicant . A number of other internal inquiries into the same events were carried out later , with the most recent CARDINAL ( report of CARDINAL DATE approved by an acting head of the GPE NORP regional police force ) finding no disciplinary misconduct in PERSON ’s actions . There was no mention in the report of the applicant receiving injuries when getting into the police car . Nor did PERSON mention it in his statements given in the course of the internal inquiry on CARDINAL DATE . PERSON stated that no physical force or means of restraint had been used against the applicant for lack of resistance on his part .

Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings against Police Officer PERSON refusal was annulled CARDINAL times by their superiors , who considered that their inquiry was incomplete .

The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in PERSON ’s actions was taken on DATE by an investigator from the ORG investigative committee of the GPE NORP regional prosecutor ’s office . Relying on statements by PERSON and other police officers , who had denied any violence against the applicant , the investigator held that the applicant could have received the injuries when getting into the police car before being taken to the police station on DATE . The investigator ’s decision was declared lawful and wellfounded in the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE .

In DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist . He complained of a sleep disorder on account of his ill - treatment in police custody on DATE . He was diagnosed with sleep disorder related to the legs injuries sustained on DATE and recommended a consultation and treatment by a neurologist and a trauma specialist .

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant ’s car was stopped by Officers PERSON and PERSON of the traffic police . According to the applicant , they knocked him to the ground and kicked him repeatedly . The police officers then drew up records , stating that he was drunk . He disagreed , requesting that he be taken for a medical examination which would confirm that he was not . The police officers took him to the NORP district police station instead .

According to records drawn up by ORG TIME and CARDINAL a.m. : ( i ) the applicant was suspended from driving because he had signs of alcohol intoxication ( alcohol on his breath , red eyes and slurred speech ) ; ( ii ) he had been ordered to undergo a medical examination to determine whether he had been in a state of alcohol intoxication , but he had refused to do so ; ( iii ) his car had been impounded ; and ( iv ) the applicant had been found to have committed an administrative offence by refusing to undergo a medical examination at the request of the police .

At the police station ORG and PERSON reported to their superior that the applicant had disobeyed their order to stop his car ; that they had pursued him until he had eventually stopped ; that he had resisted arrest ; and that in order to apprehend him they had twisted his arm behind his back , as a result of which he had fallen .

At TIME the applicant was released from the NORP district police station .

On DATE both the applicant and Officer PERSON lodged criminal complaints with the NORP district prosecutor ’s office , ORG . The applicant complained that he had been beaten up by ORG and PERSON The latter complained that in the course of the applicant ’s apprehension he had hurt his hand when they both had fallen .

On DATE an investigator ordered the applicant ’s forensicmedical examination , which was carried out on DATE . A forensic - medical expert from ORG recorded CARDINAL abrasions measuring from QUANTITY to CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the upper and middle parts of the lower right arm , on the right wrist and on both knees . The applicant also had CARDINAL bruises on the middle part of the right upper arm and on the upper and middle parts of the left upper arm , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY . The expert concluded that all injuries , which had not resulted in harm to the applicant ’s health , could have been caused by hard blunt objects .

On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE held a hearing in the administrative proceedings against the applicant . The applicant contested the police ORG versions of events on DATE and stated that he had not been drunk and had demanded to undergo a medical examination that would have confirmed that fact ; however , the police officers had not let him be examined . His statements were supported by a witness . The court found the applicant guilty of disobedience of a police officer ’s lawful order to undergo a medical examination to detect alcohol intoxication , and sentenced him to the seizure of his driving licence for DATE . On DATE ORG , following a prior appeal by the applicant , upheld the judgment .

Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s alleged illtreatment by the police officers . Their refusals were annulled by their superiors CARDINAL times on the grounds that they had been based on an incomplete inquiry . On several occasions ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeals on the grounds that the NORP decisions had already been annulled . On CARDINAL occasions ORG granted the applicant ’s appeals and found the decisions unlawful and unfounded .

The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions was issued on DATE by an investigator from the Cheboksary inter - district investigative committee . Relying on the reports by Officers PERSON and PERSON and similar statements given by them later , the investigator held that the applicant ’s injuries had been the result of the lawful use of force by the police officers during his arrest . The investigator ’s decision was declared lawful and wellfounded in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , and was upheld by ORG on DATE .

In the same decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by PERSON , finding no fault on the part of the applicant as PERSON had fallen and hurt his hand when arresting him .

The applicant brought civil proceedings , seeking to have the investigating authority ’s failure to carry out an effective investigation declared unlawful and claiming compensation . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his application , finding that he had failed to prove that the investigating authority had acted unlawfully , that he had been harmed as a result of its actions or inaction , that there had been a causal connection between specific unlawful behaviour and any harm , and that there had been evidence of an alleged tortfeasor ’s liability . It held that domestic law did not provide for compensation of nonpecuniary damage in a case of a delayed decision in reply to a criminal complaint or in a case of the annulment of such a decision . On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the judgment .

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant and other young men , who were sitting in his parked car , were approached by traffic - police officers and taken to GPE police station following a complaint from a certain PERSON that they had broken a window in her car and tried to steal a child seat . The applicant was handcuffed .

The applicant described events at the police station as follows . CARDINAL of the police officers had grabbed him by the neck with one hand and by his head with the other and hit his face against a wall . The applicant ’s CARDINAL front teeth had fallen out and he had felt unwell . Later , he had asked to have the handcuffs removed as they had been causing him pain . Instead , a police officer lifted his hands shackled behind him , inflicting more pain .

According to the records drawn up by Officer PERSON between CARDINAL.CARDINAL TIME on DATE : ( i ) the applicant was suspended from driving because he had signs of alcohol intoxication ( alcohol on his breath , red eyes and trembling fingers ) ; ( ii ) he was ordered to undergo a medical examination for detecting alcohol intoxication , but refused to do so ; ( iii ) his car was impounded ; and ( iv ) the applicant was found to have committed an administrative offence by refusing to undergo a medical examination at the request of the police . The applicant was subsequently found guilty of disobeying a police officer ’s lawful order to undergo a medical examination for detecting alcohol intoxication , and sentenced to the seizure of his driving licence for DATE ( judgment of the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE of DATE , and was upheld by ORG on DATE ) .

In a report to his superior , Officer PERSON stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively at the police station and that he himself had hit his head against a wall and had broken his tooth .

No criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in relation to ORG ’s complaint in respect of the attempted theft of a child seat ( GPE town police decision of DATE ) .

DATE . After his release at TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at the traumatology unit of the GPE town hospital . The applicant had abrasions on the right side of his face , his lip , the left side of his neck and the wrists , and the crowns of CARDINAL upper teeth on the right side were broken . On DATE he was examined by a dentist who recorded that the upper front tooth on the right was missing , the crown of the next tooth to the right was broken , and that the CARDINAL lower front teeth were loose as a result of a traumatic subluxation .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint that he had been ill - treated at the police station . The GPE investigative committee at the ORG prosecutor ’s office carried out a pre - investigation inquiry .

An investigator obtained an opinion of a forensic - medical expert from the GPE division of ORG , who considered that the applicant ’s injuries could have been received within TIME of the applicant ’s medical examination on DATE , as a result of an impact from a hard blunt object , for example as a result of hitting a wall as regards the injuries to the front teeth , lip and face . The injuries had resulted in short - term health problems lasting DATE , that is to say minor harm to the applicant ’s health .

Investigators of the GPE investigative committee refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s alleged illtreatment by the police . Their refusal was annulled CARDINAL times by their superiors , who considered that it had been based on an incomplete inquiry , and a fresh preinvestigation inquiry was ordered .

The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions was taken by an investigator on CARDINAL DATE . He cited the police ORG statements that the applicant had tried to run away , they had therefore handcuffed him in order to take him to the police station , where the applicant himself had struck his face against a wall . Relying on the police ORG statements , the investigator concluded that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself by striking his face against a wall at the police station , and that the abrasions on his neck and wrists had been a result of the lawful use of force by the police officers in the course of his arrest . The investigator ’s decision was declared lawful and well - founded by the ORG decision of DATE , and was upheld by ORG on DATE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested by Police Officers P. and PERSON in a CARDINAL shop and taken to the NORP district police station of the GPE NORP administrative circuit . According to the applicant , in the police car he was slapped in the face several times , and at the police station the police officers repeatedly punched him in the head and other parts of the body and kicked him in the chest .

In their reports concerning the incident the police officers did not mention that the applicant had had any injuries .

DATE . In a record of the applicant ’s administrative detention at TIME on DATE , drawn up at TIME DATE , an officer on duty at the police station noted the applicant ’s complaint that the police officers had inflicted injuries on him . The record further stated that the applicant ’s examination had revealed no injuries on him .

At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor at an addictiontreatment hospital and was found to be in a state of alcohol intoxication . The doctor noted that the applicant was handcuffed and had abrasions on his face .

According to an administrative - offence record drawn up on DATE by the officer on duty , at TIME on DATE the applicant had breached public order by using foul language in a public place and ignoring police ORG requests to stop . On DATE the Justice of FAC no . CARDINAL found that the applicant had committed petty hooliganism and imposed a RUB CARDINAL fine on him . The applicant , who pleaded guilty , did not appeal against the judgment . He was released after the hearing .

On DATE he was examined by a doctor at polyclinic no . CARDINAL who recorded bruising to the area of both eyes and the nose , bleeding of the sclera of both eyes , a fractured nose and a possible concussion . On DATE the applicant was examined at town hospital no . CARDINAL and diagnosed with acute rightside perforated post - traumatic otitis and bruising of the soft tissue of the head , in particular in the area of the left eye and the cheek bones . On DATE he was examined at polyclinic no . CARDINAL and diagnosed with hearing difficulties on both sides and acute rightside perforated posttraumatic otitis .

Following the applicant ’s criminal complaint of DATE , the GPE district investigative committee at the GPE prosecutor ’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry .

The applicant ’s medical records were examined by a forensicmedical expert from ORG . The expert concluded that the bruising and fracture of the nose ( which had resulted in short - term health problems lasting DATE , that is to say minor harm to the applicant ’s health ) , the bruising in the area of both eyes and the cheek bones and the bleeding to the sclera of both eyes could have been sustained on DATE as a result of impacts from hard blunt objects . As no injuries had been recorded in the area of the external right ear , the expert doubted that the perforated otitis had been a result of trauma or its connection to the alleged police ill - treatment ( the expert ’s report of CARDINAL DATE ) .

Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions . Their CARDINAL refusals issued DATE and DATE were annulled because they were based on an incomplete inquiry .

In the most recent refusal to open a criminal case of CARDINAL DATE an investigator held that the applicant , who had been drunk , could have fallen and injured himself . It relied , inter alia , on Officer P. ’s report dated DATE that the applicant had been brought to the police station with “ visible injuries ” . That decision was declared lawful and well - founded in the ORG decision of DATE , and later upheld by ORG on DATE .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

By a judgment of ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) of DATE , upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , the applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment on charges of drug abuse .

Basing its judgment on the applicant ’s convictions by ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE on charges of robbery and drug abuse , on DATE ORG ( Općinski kazneni sud u GPE ) sentenced the applicant to a single prison term of DATE and DATE .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG took into account the above convictions and sentenced the applicant to a single prison term of DATE and DATE .

The applicant started to serve his prison sentence , which had originally been imposed by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in FAC ( GPE u GPE ) on DATE .

Following a request by the ORG administration of CARDINAL DATE and a decision by ORG ( ORG pravosuđa , PERSON ) of DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG ( GPE u GPE ) on DATE .

During his stay in FAC the applicant was accommodated in CARDINAL different cells .

According to the applicant , CARDINAL of the cells measured QUANTITY , including the sanitary facilities , and he had shared those cells with CARDINAL other persons ( cell no . CARDINAL between CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) ; CARDINAL other persons ( cell no . CARDINAL between CARDINAL and DATE ) ; and CARDINAL other persons ( cell no . CARDINAL from DATE until DATE ) . The fourth cell , no . CARDINAL , measured QUANTITY and he had had to share it with CARDINAL other person DATE and DATE . Those cells had open sanitary facilities , were dirty and did not have sufficient lockers for all inmates . Moreover , he had not been provided with sufficient medical care , which had caused him additional distress .

According to the ORG , during his stay in ORG the applicant had on average QUANTITY of personal space . In particular , he stayed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , for DATE with CARDINAL other persons . He then spent DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , together with CARDINAL other person . He was then placed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , where he stayed for DATE ; and cell no . CARDINAL/O , measuring QUANTITY , where he spent DATE . The Government did not provide information about the exact number of inmates placed together with the applicant in the CARDINAL latter cells .

The Government also submitted that cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL had toilets that were completely separated from the living area , and that the toilets were equipped with their own ventilation systems . In cell no . CARDINAL the toilet was separated from the living area by a wall measuring QUANTITY in height and the cell had its own ventilation system . All the cells had installations providing access to drinking water , and all had windows allowing access to daylight and fresh air . During the DATE , the cells were heated through a central heating system . They were constantly maintained and in DATE , DATE and DATE the necessary refurbishment and improvement of the prison facilities was carried out , which the Government substantiated with photographs .

The Government also explained that for TIME , TIME the applicant had been allowed to circulate freely outside his cell . In addition , he had had the opportunity to use a gym , which had been open from TIME and from TIME , and a basketball court , which had been open on DATE from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. and at DATE both in TIME and in TIME . The prison was equipped with a badminton court , table - tennis tables and chess boards , which the applicant had also been able to use . He could also have borrowed books from ORG library , which provided its services to the prison , and he had been allowed to watch television and to borrow films .

As to the applicant ’s medical care , the ORG submitted that on CARDINAL DATE , before his transfer to FAC , the applicant had claimed that he had no serious health issues . He had confirmed this when examined by a doctor in FAC on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE , at his request , the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist , to whom he complained of problems with sleeping but refused to accept any treatment . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant again refused to accept treatment . During his stay in FAC the applicant was provided with dental treatment CARDINAL times and examined by a prison doctor CARDINAL times . In support of their arguments , the Government provided the applicant ’s relevant medical records .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( Ured za ljudska prava PERSON ) about the conditions of his detention . He alleged in particular that FAC had been overcrowded , that the cells had been dirty and poorly ventilated , that they had not been appropriately equipped , and that the medical treatment had been inadequate . The applicant ’s complaint was forwarded to FAC of ORG , as the body competent to deal with the matter .

On DATE , citing the inadequate conditions of his detention , the applicant invited FAC ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) to make a friendly settlement agreement before he lodged a civil action with the competent court .

On DATE the applicant complained to a sentence - execution judge of ORG ( PERSON u GPE , sudac izvršenja ) about the conditions of his detention , reiterating his arguments .

On DATE the Bjelovar Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG declined the applicant ’s request for a friendly settlement on the grounds that it had not found any violation of his rights concerning the conditions of his detention .

On DATE the sentence - execution judge of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaints as ill - founded . She explained that the information received from ORG did not suggest that the applicant had been placed in overcrowded cells , and that , as regards the general conditions of FAC , she had herself visited the prison facilities and had found that in general they had not been inappropriate . She also emphasised that every cell had a sanitary facility which was clean and well maintained , and the cells were equipped with fresh water taps . The judge also emphasised that the applicant had been examined by a dentist several times and had also been provided with psychiatric care . Lastly , the judge pointed out that the applicant had been given sufficient opportunity to practise sport and free access to outdoor areas .

The applicant appealed against that decision to a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal and , endorsing the reasoning of the sentence - execution judge , considered that in essence the applicant ’s rights had not been breached .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant in respect of his complaints of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It explained that during his stay in FAC he had been placed in CARDINAL cells : CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , which had measured QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY . It did not specify any further details . It accepted that there had been an issue of overcrowdings in general , but said that any problem in that regard had been compensated for by allowing inmates freedom of movement and the opportunity to participate in DATE activities . Furthermore , it argued that FAC facilities had been regularly maintained and renovated , notably in DATE and DATE . The inmates were provided with sufficient outdoor exercise , namely a variety of sports activities and free access to outdoor areas for TIME , TIME In addition , it emphasised that the applicant had been examined by the prison doctor CARDINAL times , by a psychiatrist once and by a dentist CARDINAL times .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the decision of its CARDINAL - judge panel of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , relying on LAW ( equality before the law ) , LAW before the ORG authorities ) and LAW ( right to a fair trial ) of the LAW , and complaining of inadequate medical treatment and lack of personal space in FAC , as well as discrimination following the alleged misinterpretation of the relevant law by ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the ORG administration to continue with his education while serving his prison sentence .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ In his constitutional complaint , the appellant was unable to show that ORG had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant ’s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on . ”

The decision of ORG was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .