CASE OF MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant , the private company PERSON . PERSON , whose registered office is in GPE , is the publisher of the DATE magazine PERSON .

On DATE and DATE ORG ( hereinafter –“Parliament ” ) examined a draft law on same - sex civil partnerships . At DATE it adopted the Registration of Same - Sex Civil Partnerships Act ( hereinafter DATE “ the Act ” ) . During the parliamentary debate on the issue , certain deputies of ORG ( hereinafter DATE “ the SNP ” ) , which opposed legal recognition of same - sex partnerships , took the floor in order to express their disagreement with the proposed draft .

On DATE the PERSON magazine published a CARDINAL - page article entitled “ Registration of Same - Sex Civil Partnerships Act adopted ” , with the standfirst : “ Right - wingers full of pride , but according to non - governmental organisations the LAW is not consistent with LAW , summarising the parliamentary debate preceding the adoption of the LAW . The first CARDINAL paragraphs of the article read as follows :

“ DATE , the second reading of the proposed LAW on the registration of same - sex civil partnerships ended up as a crash course in narrow - mindedness , pervaded by a Stone Age mentality . Our elected representatives were so keen to reject amendments to the draft [ and the ] actual rights of same - sex oriented citizens that they decided to pass the LAW at the third attempt within CARDINAL single parliamentary session . On DATE , the Act came to fruition , the outcome being CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ...

The ORG ’s gunslingers ... shone brilliantly during the explanation of their votes . [ ORG ] spouted forth all the same stupidities as at the previous reading ( such as that the Act was completely unnecessary , that the Act had been extorted by marginal groups , that there were other groups which merited the legislature ’s priority ) , and touched on the objections against his use of words such as ʻfaggotsʼ and ʻlesbiansʼ DATE . He stated : ʻWhere I come from , we call them “ faggots ” and “ lesbians ” ; in GPE a region in GPE ] , they are called “ kulotini ” and in GPE they are “ gays ” . I am not someone who would change his way of speaking just because he has come to GPE . In PERSON [ another region in GPE ] , we simply have faggots and lesbians.ʼ

[ ORG ] , also from the ORG , assured with a playful smile that there was probably not a single person in the assembly hall who wished for the ‘ fruit of their loins to declare themselves to be what we are voting on DATE , with our rights ... in other words , none of us would want to have a son or a daughter who would opt for this kind of GPE . If our homeless people could follow the breadcrumb trail to GPE or even further , let these ladies and gentlemen also go there to marry . But the biggest victims of this law would be the children of such a marriage : ‘ Just imagine a child whose father comes to pick him up from school and greets him with “ PERSON , I ’ve come to take you hooooome ! Have you got your coat on yet?’ He accompanied this brilliant remark with a coffeehouse imitation which was probably supposed to clearly illustrate some orthodox understanding of a stereotypically effeminate and mannered faggot , whereas in reality [ what it illustrated was ] just the typical attitude of a cerebral bankrupt who is lucky to be living in a country with such a limited pool of human resources that a person of his characteristics can even end up in ORG , when in a normal country worthy of any respect he could not even be a janitor in the average urban primary school . ”

In DATE of the article , the author first described the responses of other parliamentarians to the SNP PERSON speeches , and in DATE concluded with the views on the newly adopted PERSON expressed by the non - governmental organisations advocating for the rights of same - sex couples , which mainly deplored the fact that the LAW accorded a very limited set of rights to these couples . It ended by reporting the announcement by the representatives of these organisations that they would be challenging the newly adopted LAW before ORG .

On DATE the ORG member PERSON brought an action before ORG for defamation of his honour and reputation against the applicant company , claiming that he had suffered severe mental distress due to the offensiveness of the article . He claimed that the depiction of him as “ cerebral bankrupt ” was objectively and subjectively offensive , its sole intent being to belittle him .

On DATE the applicant company replied that it considered its actions to have been lawful , as a balance had to be struck between PERSON ’s right to honour and reputation and its own right to the freedom of expression . It invoked the standards and case - law of ORG the freedom of the press to impart information on matters of public interest . The applicant company considered that PERSON ’s statements in the parliamentary debate had amounted to an insulting attack which degraded homosexuals , and hence the criticism published in PERSON . Nevertheless , the critical article had not been aimed at belittling PERSON as a person , but constituted a reaction to his own extreme statements in similar terms .

On DATE ORG held an unsuccessful settlement hearing .

On DATE another hearing was held at which the court heard GPE , who stated that he had not offended anyone with his remarks , nor had he wished to do so . He had taken the offensive remarks in PERSON as an attack on his character and had been very hurt by them , especially as he had become the subject of ridicule in his local community .

On DATE , ORG handed down its judgment , in which it partially upheld ORG claim and ordered the applicant company to pay him damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP Tolars ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant company was also ordered to publish the introductory and operative part of the judgment in PERSON . The remainder of ORG claim was dismissed . The court acknowledged that the applicant company had had the right to publish critical comments on ORG conduct in the parliamentary debate ; however , the term “ cerebral bankrupt ” had referred to his personal characteristics and was therefore objectively offensive . In the court ’s opinion , the use of such offensive language did not simply serve the purpose of imparting information to the public . Moreover , the description in the article did not constitute a serious criticism of ORG work .

As to PERSON ’s conduct , the court held that the gestures he had used to mimic the behaviour of a homosexual man were simply reminiscent of gestures made by actors to convey the idea of homosexuality . The court neither found PERSON ’s speech and conduct to be offensive to homosexuals , nor considered it to have been aimed at promoting prejudice and intolerance against them . It held that PERSON had merely expressed his opinion , which , wrong as it might have been , was not to be regarded as extreme and thus justifying the treatment in the impugned article .

Both parties appealed against the judgment before ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company ’s appeal . It upheld PERSON ’s appeal in respect of the text to be published in PERSON informing the public of the judgment , but dismissed his claim for greater damages . ORG upheld ORG finding that the statements in the impugned article constituted an offensive judgment of PERSON ’s personality which he was not required to endure . The court further held that , even assuming that PERSON ’s speech had been offensive to homosexuals , that did not justify the applicant company ’s crude response aimed at him personally .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . It claimed , inter alia , that the impugned article was to be considered a political satire in which the author had merely expressed his opinion on ORG conduct in a public parliamentary debate . It further maintained that the words “ typical attitude of a cerebral bankrupt ” had not been aimed at ORG as a person but at his mimicking of the gestures allegedly typical of homosexual men .

On DATE ORG , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , dismissed the applicant company ’s complaint , holding that the lower courts had struck a fair balance between its freedom of expression and PERSON ’s personal dignity . The court acknowledged the broad boundaries associated with the freedom of the press , especially when reporting on matters of great public interest , but found on the facts of the case in issue that the lower courts had appropriately applied the criteria resulting from their own case - law and the case - law of ORG . The court dismissed the applicant company ’s assertion that the criticism in question had not been aimed at GPE as a person but at his mimicking of homosexuals , concluding that the average reader would understand the remark as an assessment of ORG intelligence and personal characteristics .

It also dismissed the applicant company ’s argument that the article was to be regarded as a satire , as it was evident from the text that it was intended to inform the public about the content of the parliamentary debate and to express a critical opinion of the speeches of the individual deputies . As regards the applicant company ’s argument that the offensive statement had been a response to ORG own offensive remarks , ORG acknowledged that in such cases sharper criticism might be permissible , but only if there was a sufficient factual basis for it . As the court found no substantive connection between PERSON ’s speech and the assessment of his intellectual abilities , it concluded that the criticism was not justified . In ORG view , the impugned article and its author ’s offensive characterisation of PERSON had not contributed either to people being informed or to a socially responsible public discussion on the position of homosexuals .

Constitutional judge ORG submitted a dissenting opinion in which he referred to a climate of general tolerance towards intolerant and offensive statements against homosexuals . He further expressed the view that the lower courts had been biased and also that ORG had failed to appropriately apply the standards of freedom of the press developed in the case - law of ORG .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant gave birth prematurely to twins at a maternity hospital in GPE ( “ the maternity hospital ” ) . The first twin died TIME after her birth . The second twin , who was transferred to a resuscitation and intensive therapy unit at CARDINAL of the St GPE children ’s hospitals ( “ the children ’s hospital ” ) TIME after his birth , survived . The applicant was of the opinion that her daughter would also have survived had she been promptly transferred to a resuscitation and intensive therapy unit at a children ’s hospital .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother , PERSON , sent the following telegram to the President of GPE :

“ ... newborns are dying because of delays in emergency medical treatment . Resuscitation units lack capacity . [ Hospitals ] have waiting lists – a brutal practice . Thus in ... DATE at ... TIME in FAC no . ... [ my ] grandchildren , twins , ... were born . They were tenth on the waiting list . [ My ] granddaughter ... never got to the top of the list and died TIME later . [ My ] grandson ... was hospitalised TIME after his birth and placed in the resuscitation unit of ORG no . ... in a very serious condition ... The death [ of my granddaughter ] has shocked our family . We could not imagine that it was possible not to provide emergency medical treatment to the newborn child ... Does the waiting list constitute negligence or irresponsibility on a criminal scale ? I ask [ you ] to take action . ORG no . ... needs urgent help ... ”

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE NORP sent CARDINAL more telegrams to the President of GPE , stating :

“ I am informing you for the second time that emergency neonatal resuscitation for premature babies in GPE is being provided on the basis of a waiting list . Who is responsible for the deaths of these children ? I request that this problem be examined at the meetings of the Government and ORG ... ”

“ I am wiring you for the third time about the deaths of premature newborns in GPE ... [ I ] consider the existence of a waiting list for resuscitation treatment a crime ... Waiting for [ your ] response about the action taken ... ”

The Administration of the President of GPE forwarded the telegrams to ORG of GPE ( “ the Ministry ” ) for examination . ORG asked ORG at GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) to examine the allegations and take the necessary action .

The ORG ordered an examination , which was carried out by a panel consisting of the chief neonatologist of the ORG and the head of the paediatrics department at the advanced medical studies faculty of GPE . The examination was carried out on the basis of the applicant ’s and the twins’ medical records , which were obtained from the maternity hospital and the children ’s hospital . The results of the examination were set out in a report ( рецензия ) , which mainly concerned the development and treatment of the twin who had died . In particular , the report stated that the infant had been born prematurely in DATE of gestation of an eighth pregnancy and by a first delivery . Her blood test had indicated the possibility of a prenatal viral infection , and she had been clinically diagnosed as premature ( at thirtyone DATE ) , with respiratory distress syndrome and atelectasis . A postmortem examination had revealed moderate interstitial emphysema of the lungs , which had explained the immediate cause of death . It was concluded that she had been born with severe respiratory distress syndrome complicated by an air leak syndrome , and that she had been provided with treatment which had been entirely appropriate , given the seriousness of the condition and the nature of the disease . Such cases carried a risk of death of not PERCENT , in addition to the risk of serious disabilities , and an early transfer to a children ’s hospital did not guarantee survival or a favourable outcome . The report also noted that the second twin had suffered from respiratory distress syndrome as well , but to a much lesser extent . The experts did not make any significant observations about the treatment he had received at the maternity hospital or the children ’s hospital .

On DATE the acting head of the ORG sent the report to the ORG with an accompanying letter .

On DATE , in reply to her telegrams , the ORG informed NORP of the results of the experts’ examination of the twins’ medical records by briefly restating the conclusions in the report . ORG noted that the results of the examination of her allegations had been communicated to ORG .

On DATE , the ORG forwarded to the ORG a copy of its reply to NORP and informed the ORG that , according to the conclusion of a commission formed by the maternity hospital where the twins had been born , the reasons for the applicant ’s premature delivery had been her compromised obstetricgynaecological history DATE in particular , CARDINAL artificial abortions – and her urogenital mycoplasmosis infection . The letter of CARDINAL DATE was the subject of proceedings brought by the applicant against ORG , about which no further information is available .

On DATE the applicant received a letter from the ORG with similar contents to the letter of DATE that it had sent to NORP , stating , in particular , that her children ’s medical records had been examined by the panel of experts . It appears that a request by the applicant for a copy of the report was refused , and that that refusal was the subject of separate proceedings brought by the applicant against the ORG . In the course of those proceedings , on DATE , the applicant received a copy of the report and the ORG ’s letter to ORG DATE .

On DATE she brought new proceedings against the ORG , seeking a declaration that its actions had been unlawful in that it had collected and examined her medical records and those of her children , and had communicated the report containing her personal information to the Ministry without obtaining her consent . She requested that the report and the letter of CARDINAL DATE be declared invalid . She stated that she had not asked ORG to examine the quality of the medical treatment she and her children had received or to establish the cause of her daughter ’s death . She claimed that ORG had interfered with her private life by disclosing – without her consent – confidential information to a considerable number of individuals , including staff at ORG who dealt with correspondence and other employees . She relied on LAW , which prohibited the disclosure of confidential medical information without a patient ’s consent . She argued that the provisions of LAW contained an exhaustive list of exceptions to that general rule , and that the ORG ’s impugned acts had not fallen under any of them .

On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE dismissed her application . The chief neonatologist , who was examined as a witness , stated that : he had acted within his powers ; he had not been able to verify ORG ’s allegations without obtaining the medical records in question ; he had involved medical specialists in the examination of those records ; and no disclosure of the information contained in those medical records had taken place . A representative of ORG denied the applicant ’s allegations .

ORG found that ORG had asked the ORG to examine the allegations set out in NORP ’s telegrams . ORG had had the power to request material from the ORG , which in turn had had a corresponding duty to submit detailed information . The applicant ’s medical records had been examined by doctors bound by confidentiality . It was the report prepared as a result of that examination , and not the applicant ’s medical records per se , which had been transferred to the Ministry .

On the basis of the above considerations , ORG held that the applicant ’s rights , as guaranteed by LAW , had not been violated .

ORG also noted that the applicant had lodged her application on DATE , although she had learned that her children ’s medical records had been obtained without her consent on DATE from the ORG ’s letter of DATE . ORG saw no reasonable excuse for her failure to lodge her application within the statutory timelimit . Lastly , it rejected her request for a separate ruling to denounce the ORG ’s allegedly common practice of obtaining medical records without ORG consent .

An application by the applicant for clarification of the judgment – in particular , for details as to whether her application had been dismissed on the merits or because it had been time - barred DATE was dismissed on DATE by ORG , which considered that the judgment had been clearly formulated and did not allow for different interpretations . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment , relying on LAW and , in particular , the exhaustive list of exceptions to the general rule of non - disclosure of confidential medical information without a patient ’s consent provided therein . She stated that her own medical records and those of her children had been collected and examined without her consent by ORG officials acting ultra vires , and not by her own doctors , who were bound by confidentiality . The report contained confidential medical information and its communication to the Ministry without her consent had been unlawful . The fact that her own personal medical records had been examined in addition to those of her children had become known to her at DATE than DATE . The threemonth timelimit for lodging her application had started running on DATE , when she had received a copy of the report . She had therefore complied with that time - limit .

On DATE GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment and fully endorsed ORG findings .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

At the time of the incidents the applicant was selling CDs from a street stand in GPE . On DATE the applicant and his relative GPE were arrested by the police while they were working at the stand . They were taken to the police station and beaten up by a police officer there . As a result of a punch to his ear , the applicant ’s eardrum was perforated . The applicant and GPE were subsequently released from the police station .

On DATE ORG received a complaint that damaged CDs were being sold from a street stand . A number of police officers went to the venue and talked the applicant and GPE into a solution with the complainant , but they did not arrest them because their activity had not constituted an offence .

On DATE the applicant and GPE lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG prosecutor against a police officer who they alleged had ill - treated them on DATE . At the time of their complaint they did not know the identity of the police officer but gave a description of his physical appearance . They also complained that they had been arrested without any explanation and that as a result of that arrest they had been arbitrarily deprived of their rights .

On DATE the applicant went back to the ORG prosecutor ’s office and complained that he had been injured as a result of the ill - treatment . In order to provide evidence of his injuries the applicant requested a medical examination . On DATE the ORG prosecutor referred the applicant to ORG .

On DATE ORG reported that the applicant ’s left eardrum had been perforated as a result of physical trauma , and that the injury required a CARDINAL-day healing period .

On DATE the applicant also applied to the ORG branch of ORG , where a number of physical and psychological assessments were carried out by the doctors working for the ORG . According to a report drawn up on DATE , the applicant had a perforation in his left eardrum and he was suffering from acute post - traumatic stress disorder . The report concluded that the ORG findings were compatible with the applicant ’s story of ill - treatment .

In ORG report the applicant was reported as having described the incident and told the doctors that after he was punched on his ear , his eardrum had been perforated and he was no longer able to hear on that side . He added that , at the end of his arrest , he had not been taken to a forensic doctor for the required medical check , but the police officers had taken him to a private doctor , where he was diagnosed with ear perforation . The applicant submitted the report for the investigation file . However , this evidence was not further investigated during the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant and his relative GPE gave their statements at the ORG prosecutor ’s office . The applicant complained that he had been beaten by a police officer working at ORG and as a result his eardrum had been perforated . He said that he did not know the name of the officer , but he could identify him . GPE affirmed the same in his statement . He complained that he had also been beaten by the same officer ; however , he had not asked to be examined by a doctor because the ill - treatment had not left any marks on his body .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office asked for another medical examination at ORG in order to determine the date of injury to the applicant ’s ear . It was concluded that it was medically not possible to determine the date of injury .

On DATE the applicant submitted the names of his witnesses to the investigating authorities .

On DATE , a chief police commissioner who had been entrusted with the duty of investigating the applicant ’s allegations , questioned the applicant , his relative GPE , the suspect and CARDINAL other police officers as witnesses . That administrative investigation was conducted because the domestic law applicable at the time required prosecutors to seek permission from the administrative authorities before they could prosecute a police officer ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A police officer , V.A. , who worked at the GPE police station , testified as a witness . He stated that the applicant had neither been arrested nor ill - treated on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested once more after a complaint was received regarding his CD stand , and taken to the police station . He was released DATE .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officer because the Governor of ORG had denied the requisite permission for a criminal prosecution .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s decision was notified to the applicant ’s lawyer . On DATE the lawyer lodged an objection against the decision .

NORP In response to the applicant ’s objection , on DATE the ORG decided to quash the decision and ordered the prosecutor to file criminal charges against the police officer . ORG noted that the prosecutor had not conducted a proper investigation and had failed , in particular , to establish whether the applicant had been taken to the police station on DATE , and to question the eyewitnesses named by the applicant .

M.T. , a police officer working at ORG , was subsequently indicted before the ORG CARDINALth ORG ( hereinafter “ the criminal court ” ) and the applicant was admitted to the case as the complainant . On DATE PERSON gave his statement before the criminal court . He denied all the charges .

On DATE the suspect PERSON informed the criminal court in writing that he had been assigned to work for ORG in GPE ; therefore , he would not be able to be present at the court hearings . As a result , until DATE the criminal court was unable to summon him to take part in the proceedings .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the witnesses proposed by the applicant testified before the criminal court . The first witness stated that he had helped the applicant at his CD stand occasionally , and that he had seen him on DATE of the incident . The applicant had told him that he had been ill - treated by the police because he had refused to provide them with free CDs . The other witness testified that he had taken the applicant to the hospital , and during that time the applicant had told him that he had been beaten in the police station .

On DATE police officer V.A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) appeared as a witness before the criminal court . He testified that the applicant had been taken to the police station by the suspect PERSON However , he had not been subjected to ill - treatment .

On DATE the suspect PERSON attended the hearing before the criminal court . The applicant was not present at the hearing . The criminal court ordered the applicant to attend the next hearing and identify the suspect from his photographs . However , the applicant and his relative PERSON could not be brought before the criminal court until DATE as a result of a change of address .

On DATE the applicant and his relative GPE attended the hearing before the criminal court . GPE also testified as a witness . He stated that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment at the police station and had suffered injuries to his ear , which was later diagnosed at the hospital as perforation of the eardrum . The criminal court also asked him to identify the suspect from his photograph . GPE stated that he needed to see the suspect in person in order to be able to identify him because he considered that he would not be able to do so from the photographs .

On DATE the criminal court was informed that the suspect could not appear before the court because he was in GPE . The suspect could not be brought before the court until DATE .

On DATE the criminal court decided to acquit the police officer on the ground of insufficient evidence .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the limitation period had expired , and ordered the discontinuation of the proceedings against the police officer .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in ORG Turnu FAC .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of rape and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . He has since been serving his sentence in various NORP prisons .

NORP The medical report drawn up when the applicant was admitted to prison on DATE indicates that he was “ clinically healthy ” ( clinic aparent sănătos ) .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed in the hospital wing of ORG , GPE , where he underwent surgery on DATE for an inguinal hernia on his right side .

From DATE the applicant was placed in the internal medicine unit of the hospital wing of PERSON , for digestive problems . He was included in a screening programme for digestive and liver conditions . Following a medical test to identify the viral markers of hepatitis , the applicant was found to be suffering from viral hepatitis C ( purtator PERSON ) . A biochemical blood analysis was conducted ; the results indicated that his ORG , ORG and ORG enzyme levels were normal , as was his total bilirubin .

In a note summarising the medical tests conducted during the applicant ’s hospitalisation ( scrisoare medicală ) , the doctor who had treated him observed that the applicant ’s disease was progressing satisfactorily and that no additional examination was necessary at that stage . He recommended that the applicant adhere to a specific diet and refrain from smoking . He prescribed symptomatic treatment , namely hepatoprotective drugs and vitamin therapy , noting that these were to be administered “ if needed ” ( la nevoie ) . The applicant ’s health was scheduled for re - examination within DATE .

The applicant was provided with a special diet for persons suffering from disease ( norma CARDINAL ) . During DATE , DATE and DATE DATE he was treated with hepatoprotective drugs .

On DATE the applicant refused to be hospitalised for his health check - up . His medical records do not indicate the reasons for this refusal . However , they indicate that his health was to be re - examined within DATE .

DATE the applicant was placed in the internal medicine unit of the hospital wing of PERSON for re - testing of his liver function . Blood tests showed that the ORG and ORG enzymes were slightly above the normal levels . On leaving the hospital wing , the applicant was advised to follow a course of hepatoprotective drugs , vitamin therapy and symptomatic treatment , to be administered if needed . He was also advised to have his condition reassessed within DATE .

NORP The applicant continued to be provided with the special diet for persons suffering from disease . In DATE , DATE and DATE he was treated with hepatoprotective drugs . The list of the applicant ’s medical consultations shows that , following a medical examination on DATE in FAC , it was recommended that he attend a medical consultation for hepatitis C in PERSON public hospital .

At DATE and in DATE the applicant was treated with a hepatoprotective drug and vitamins .

On DATE the applicant refused to be hospitalised for re - assessment of his health with regard to the hepatitis C condition . On DATE the applicant was examined by an internal medicine specialist , who noted that his general state of health was good .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the prison doctor . The latter noted a diagnosis of “ liver disease under observation ” and indicated that the applicant had complained of vomiting . An anti - spasmodic drug was prescribed and administered to him .

On DATE the applicant complained of palpitations . He was examined by the prison doctor , who recommended a cardiology test .

DATE the applicant was placed in the internal medicine and cardiology unit in the hospital wing of PERSON , on the grounds that he required medical supervision for retro - sternal pain and that , as a smoker , he was an at - risk patient . An electrocardiogram and blood test were carried out . The biochemical blood analysis revealed that the ORG enzyme was one - and - CARDINAL times over the upper norm , that the ORG enzyme was slightly over the norm and that the ORG enzyme was at normal levels .

A medical certificate issued at the end of his hospitalisation indicated that the applicant was suffering from unstable angina ( angor intricat de novo ) and potentially toxic liver disease ( hepatopatie posibil toxică ) . The applicant was prescribed treatment for his heart disease and a course of hepatoprotective treatment , to be followed for DATE .

In DATE the prison took the necessary steps to purchase the hepatoprotective drug , which was administered to the applicant at the beginning and end of DATE . The applicant ’s medical records indicate that he was treated with hepatoprotective drugs in DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had applied to the judge delegated by the court to supervise the observance of ORG rights in PERSON ( “ the delegate judge ” ) , complaining about his physical conditions of detention and a lack of medical treatment for his hepatitis C.

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the delegate judge dismissed his complaint . He confirmed the applicant ’s allegations that he was being held in a cell measuring QUANTITY ORG , occupied by CARDINAL inmates and containing CARDINAL tables and CARDINAL chairs . He further held that the prison authorities had attempted to improve conditions in the cell , noting that it had recently been renovated . He stated that the toilet block was separated from the cell , and that the cell received natural and artificial light . The fact that the cell was equipped with CARDINAL - tier bunk beds arose from an objective cause , namely an increase in the number of detainees , and not from a lack of good will on the part of the prison authorities .

With regard to the medical treatment provided to the applicant , the judge noted that he received the special diet for persons suffering from disease and that he had just received vitamin therapy .

Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld , in a final judgment , the delegate judge ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .


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

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

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

In DATE the applicant , who was the president of the Odessa ORG ) at the material time , unsuccessfully ran for ORG . According to him , following the election campaign , ORG of GPE ( “ ORG ” ) put in place secret surveillance measures against him .

On DATE the ORG arrested the applicant in GPE on suspicion of having organised a criminal group formed of GPE members and having planned and directed several violent crimes committed by its members .

On DATE the applicant was taken for questioning to PERSON , where several other individuals implicated in membership of the same group had been arrested and detained some time before .

On TIME DATE the applicant signed a notice that he had been informed of his rights as a suspect and expressed the wish to have a lawyer . On the same date the applicant was appointed a legal - aid lawyer , GPE In his presence , the applicant terminated the appointment and stated that he agreed to be questioned without a lawyer , until his wife hired CARDINAL privately .

On DATE the applicant was questioned and acknowledged his affiliation with ORG and the GPE , a number of whose activists named by the investigator he knew in person . At the same time , the applicant denied having taken part or having been aware of any criminal activity by these individuals . The record of the applicant ’s questioning was preceded by his signature , which was underneath a note summarising his rights as a suspect and stating that he had given his consent to take part in the questioning session without legal representation .

On DATE the applicant was placed in GPE temporary detention centre ( ORG ) , which , according to him , had unsuitable living conditions . The applicant was subsequently remanded in custody and transferred to Mykolayiv pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) .

On DATE a confrontation was conducted between the applicant and A. , CARDINAL of the individuals implicated in membership of the applicant ’s criminal group . The record of the confrontation notes that before the questioning , the investigator informed the parties of their procedural rights and asked the applicant whether , regard being had to the fact that he had no legal representation , he agreed to take part in the confrontation . The applicant expressed his willingness to take part in the confrontation , stating that he felt capable of representing himself at that point . Following this introduction , A. , who was represented by a lawyer , testified that the applicant had planned and organised several robberies , in which A. and some other individuals from the GPE had been involved . Having heard A. ’s statement , the applicant refused to take any further part in the confrontation without a lawyer and the confrontation was discontinued .

On DATE lawyer PERSON , hired by the applicant ’s spouse , was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant ’s representative .

On DATE the applicant was indicted on a number of charges including organising and directing a terrorist group with a view to re - establishing a NORP state by violent means and being in charge of several robberies ( “ expropriations ” ) committed in order to raise funds for the group . Following his indictment , the applicant was questioned in PERSON ’s presence . During questioning , the applicant reiterated his previous position and denied involvement in any criminal activity . Asked whether he had been subjected to any psychological or physical ill - treatment by the investigative authority , the applicant stated that he had not been subjected to any ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant terminated PERSON ’s appointment , as the further investigation of his case had been transferred to the GPE branch of the ORG , whereas A.A. practiced in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was transported to GPE no . CARDINAL pre - trial detention facility ( “ the GPE ” ) , where he was detained until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was further questioned as a criminal defendant . Before the questioning session began , he signed a waiver of his right to legal representation , having indicated that he was capable of defending his own interests . During questioning , the applicant refused to answer any questions , referring to his constitutional right to remain silent . Questioned several more times in DATE , the applicant signed further waivers of his right to legal representation and chose to remain silent .

On DATE , referring to his ability to represent his own interests , the applicant refused to accept the appointment of legal - aid lawyers NORP and NORP , who had been selected by the authorities , and asked for no further legal - aid lawyers to be appointed during the investigation stage .

On DATE lawyer A. GPE , engaged by the applicant ’s wife , was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant ’s new representative . The applicant , questioned in her presence , refused to testify and chose to remain silent .

On DATE the investigation was finished and the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals implicated in membership of the same criminal group , was committed to stand trial before LOC ( “ ORG ” ) , acting as a first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer PERSON both signed an affidavit that they had familiarised themselves with the CARDINAL volume case file .

In DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing in the applicant ’s case and allowed requests made by the applicant ’s co - defendants NORP , PERSON and NORP for additional time to study the case - file materials .

On DATE the applicant ’s spouse terminated A. ORG appointment , referring to financial difficulties , and the applicant asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him .

At the next court hearing ( on DATE ) ORG appointed PERSON as the applicant ’s new lawyer and granted her time to study the case file . On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s request for additional time to study the case file , referring , in particular , to his affidavit that he had studied it in full , to his failure to lodge this request before the beginning of the trial , and to the fact that the applicant would be able to seek to have case - file documents that were to be examined at a particular hearing read out in full or in part by the court before their examination .

On an unspecified date ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to appoint his father , who was not a lawyer , as his lay defender , referring to a conflict of interests that would arise if this was allowed . In particular , the applicant ’s father had been summoned for questioning as a witness in the case . According to the applicant , his father was never questioned in the end and never even received an official summons .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , did not attend the hearing .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant asked for PERSON to be excluded from the proceedings , alleging that she had been passive in representing his interests , had not been supportive of his chosen defence strategy , and that he would prefer to be represented by a privately - funded lawyer . On DATE the applicant ’s request was allowed and he was given until DATE to engage a privately - funded lawyer .

On DATE , the applicant still not having engaged a privately - funded lawyer , the court appointed PERSON as his new legal - aid lawyer .

On DATE the applicant sought the replacement of his court - appointed lawyer PERSON with PERSON , who had previously represented him as a court - appointed lawyer but who had now been privately engaged by his wife . This request was allowed and PERSON represented the applicant until DATE trial .

During the trial , the applicant acknowledged that he had supported communist ideas and had taken part in publishing and distributing propaganda . However , he denied having been involved in any violent crimes . The applicant also complained that the investigative authorities had subjected his co - defendants and himself to ill - treatment with a view to breaking their moral resistance . In particular , upon the applicant ’s arrest in DATE , the officers had threatened him with physical ill - treatment and had made inappropriate remarks concerning his wife and family life . He had also been transported to GPE lying handcuffed on the floor of the prison van and blindfolded with a dark hat , which had made him suffocate and caused him to suffer a heart attack .

After the death of PERSON , one of the applicant ’s co - defendants , during the trial proceedings , the applicant and his co - defendants demanded an investigation into the circumstances of his death , alleging that it had resulted from torture and that they had also been subjected to ill - treatment at the investigation stage . Following the investigation , the prosecutor ’s office reported to ORG that PERSON had died of cancer and there had been no evidence of ill - treatment of the other co - defendants .

According to the applicant , it was very difficult for him to concentrate during the trial . In particular , his health was adversely affected by the conditions of his detention and the lack of medical assistance for his heart problems available to him in GPE .

He noted , in particular , that DATE he was detained in cell no . CARDINAL in block CARDINAL of GPE , which was QUANTITY in size , had CARDINAL beds and , at the time of his arrival , accommodated CARDINAL detainees . The sanitary facilities were not separated from DATE . The wardens thwarted all the ORG attempts to gain some privacy by separating them with a curtain . The applicant ’s inmates were repeat offenders . Some of them suffered from contagious diseases , such as HIV and tuberculosis . The administration ignored the applicant ’s demands to be moved , as a healthy person with no criminal record , to a different cell . In DATE the applicant was relocated to a different cell , which was very similar in terms of physical and sanitary conditions . In addition , access to bathing facilities was very irregular . Furthermore , on various occasions the detainees were arbitrarily and brutally searched and beaten by special detachments of the armed forces .

The applicant further noted that he suffered from hypertension , vegetative - vascular dystonia , coronary artery disease and arrhythmia , for which he received no proper care in GPE . The applicant ’s family sent him medicines , which on some occasions were unreasonably withheld .

The applicant also submitted that on court DATE he and his co - defendants were routinely taken out of their cells at about TIME and placed with CARDINAL other inmates scheduled to be transported on DATE in a special transit box , which measured CARDINAL , had no windows and no heating . In such conditions the applicant and his co - defendants had to wait TIME for a prison van to come . Upon their return from court , they also routinely had to wait for TIME in the same holding area before being escorted to their regular cells . As a result , they missed meal time and were often left hungry . The “ packed lunches ” provided to them consisted solely of bread . Sometimes hot lunches were made available at court , but their provision was irregular .

The applicant also maintained that he had raised complaints about these issues in court , but to no avail . He presented unofficial copies of court transcripts , according to which on DATE the applicant asked for a hearing to be adjourned as he felt unwell . On DATE the applicant asked for a medical appointment in a cardiology clinic . On DATE he complained in court that on DATE the convoy officers had made the defendants run , while handcuffed and bent over , up to the courtroom located on the sixth floor and had beaten his co - defendant P. , who had stumbled and fallen . On DATE the applicant complained that he was only allowed to have TIME DATE outdoor walks , while his heart conditions called for him to walk for TIME a day . On DATE the applicant asked the court to investigate the conditions of detention in GPE , alleging that his and his co - defendants’ health had been deteriorating . On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that on DATE he and his co - defendants had been taken out of their cells at TIME and they had been held in the transit box , which had been cold , until TIME without lunch . Finally on DATE the applicant supported a complaint lodged by his co - defendant PERSON , according to whom on DATE he and his co - defendants had had to spend TIME in the cold transit box . As can be seen from the same transcript , the presiding judge advised the applicant and PERSON to address their complaints to the GPE governor , which advice they rejected as futile .

According to the ORG , the conditions of the applicant ’s detention were sufficient to meet his basic needs and compatible with his state of health . While the records enabling the identification of the applicant ’s inmates and their health status had not been preserved , inmates suffering from contagious diseases were segregated from other detainees in accordance with the applicable rules . The Government provided numbers of various cells in which the applicant was held throughout his time in GPE and indicated that these cells measured from QUANTITY and were designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates each and had not been overcrowded . They were equipped with windows giving sufficient access to natural light , had functioning sanitary facilities , tap water , heating , electric light and ventilation . Detainees were provided with CARDINAL meals per day , TIME DATE walks and DATE access to bathing facilities .

The Government further maintained that the applicant ’s state of health had been regularly monitored by the GPE medical staff on account of his pre - existing conditions ( hypertension , vegetative - vascular dystonia , coronary artery disease and arrhythmia ) . In DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in the GPE medical unit for his premature ventricular contractions ( arrhythmia ) . In addition , on several occasions the applicant also had consultations with civilian specialist doctors . In particular , on DATE , following the applicant ’s request for a consultation with a civilian cardiologist , he was examined by ORG cardiologist , who confirmed his previous diagnoses and gave recommendations as to his further outpatient treatment , which was administered in the GPE . In DATE the applicant underwent a medical assessment by a panel of civilian doctors and was certified to be in satisfactory health and fit for detention and trial . The Government presented a copy of a medical certificate , according to which on DATE the applicant had been examined by an ophthalmologist , a urologist , a physician , a pulmonologist , a cardiologist and a neurologist from ORG .

The Government also maintained that the applicant and his co - defendants had always been promptly transported to and from the courthouse and had received breakfast and dinner in the GPE . They had also been provided with either a packed lunch or hot lunch delivered to the court on hearing days . The catering had been organised by officer PERSON , and , while copies of the available menus had not been kept , there was no record of any irregularity in the catering arrangements , which had been regulated by law .

The Government also maintained that there was no record of any complaints by the applicant or his co - defendants , either with the PERSON administration or with ORG , concerning the conditions of their detention , transportation , catering or medical treatment . They presented affidavits by the GPE governor and on behalf of ORG in this respect .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of propagating a violent revolt against the constitutional order and attempting to undermine the territorial integrity of GPE ; organising and running a criminal group ; participating in a terrorist act ( detonation of an explosive in a rubbish bin near the ORG headquarters in GPE ) ; smuggling goods across the NORP border ; unlawful handling of firearms and explosives ; several armed robberies ; and engagement of a minor in criminal activity . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court also dismissed allegations of ill - treatment raised in respect of the applicant and some of his co - defendants as unsubstantiated . Finally , it noted that , insofar as the complaints of inadequate medical assistance in GPE were concerned , the applicant had been examined by civilian medical specialists in DATE and had been found to be in a satisfactory state of health and fit to take part in the court proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment . In his statement of appeal , the applicant reiterated his innocence and his allegations of ill - treatment advanced during the trial . He also reiterated that no medical assistance necessitated by his chronic conditions had been made available to him in GPE and that the conditions of his and his co - defendants’ transport to the court LOC had been inhuman . In this respect he noted that on DATE the convoy had made him and his co - defendants run to the sixth - floor courtroom while handcuffed and bent over and that on DATE the detainees had been arbitrarily held in the prison van for TIME on the way back to the GPE . The applicant further complained in his cassation appeal of a breach of his right to mount a defence . He noted in this respect that he had not been provided with a lawyer upon his arrest ; his request to have his father appointed as his lay defender had been rejected ; and his lawyer PERSON had not attended the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . Finally , the applicant complained that his right to have sufficient time and facilities for the preparation of his defence had been breached , as ORG had rejected his request for an extension of time in which to study the case - file materials in preparation for the trial . The applicant also mentioned that he was intending to supplement his statement of appeal with further submissions . No copies of any such submissions were provided to the ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE re - qualified the applicant ’s conviction for smuggling as aiding and abetting smuggling and otherwise upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment . The conviction for distribution of propaganda and attempting to undermine the territorial integrity of GPE was not reviewed , as the applicant had not lodged an appeal against it . In its decision , ORG noted , in particular , that the evidence of the applicant ’s guilt included the testimony of his co - defendants and victims of his crimes given during the trial and that there was no evidence that any statements obtained during the pre - trial investigation had been extracted through ill - treatment or in breach of the applicant ’s or his co - defendants’ right to mount a defence . Finally , it noted that ORG had properly rejected the applicant ’s request for further time in which to study the case - file materials , as it was unsubstantiated .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to Sokyriany no . CARDINAL ORG ( “ LOC ” ) to serve his sentence .

In DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , based in GPE , GPE , asked ORG to send him a number of documents from the applicant ’s case file by post .

On DATE the court denied this request , noting , in particular , that it had no facilities with which to prepare and send the copies and that the lawyer could study the case file on the court ’s premises .

DATE and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was detained in GPE pre - trial detention facility ( “ GPE ” ) awaiting the review of his conviction in the cassation proceedings .

According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention were detrimental to his health and incompatible with human dignity . In particular , the facility was extremely overcrowded . A cell which contained CARDINAL sleeping places was occupied by CARDINAL inmates . The window was covered with metal shutters , barely letting in air and light . The electric light provided in DATE was so dim that reading or writing could hurt the eyes . The sanitary facilities were not separated from DATE . The cell was not ventilated , the metal shutters overheated and the temperature often reached QUANTITY . The air , mattresses and pillows were very damp . The provision and change of bedding was irregular . During the one - and - a - half months in which he was held there , the applicant only once had access to the bathing facility . He also received no medical help for his heart problems , which were bothering him because of the unsuitable physical conditions of his detention .

According to the Government , the conditions of the applicant ’s detention were reasonably adapted to his needs . The applicant stayed in cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively . At the material time cell CARDINAL , which was designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates , was occupied by CARDINAL ; cell CARDINAL , which was designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates , was occupied by CARDINAL ; and cell CARDINAL , which was designed for CARDINAL inmates , was filled to its capacity . All of the cells were equipped with windows letting in natural light and fresh air , sanitary facilities , sinks , artificial ventilation , refrigerators and televisions . The average temperature in the cells was QUANTITY . The detainees were supplied with soap and bedding , which was regularly changed , and could also buy toiletries in the GPE shop , if they so wished . They were also provided with CARDINAL meals a day , and were allowed DATE TIME walks and DATE access to the bathing facility .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , where he served his sentence until DATE .

According to the applicant , upon his arrival on DATE and until DATE he was detained in the intake area ( quarantine cell ) , which was very damp and unheated . His warm civilian clothes were seized and he was provided with a prison uniform in a size too small for him . This was not remedied until DATE , when his mother brought warm clothes , which he was allowed to keep . During his mother ’s visit , the applicant was allowed to stay with her in the colony ’s visitor hostel , which was also barely heated . On various occasions the administration blocked or delayed the applicant ’s correspondence and the delivery of NORP newspapers to which the applicant subscribed . The applicant was not provided with appropriate medical care and treatment . In addition , the colony administration exerted arbitrary psychological pressure on him by subjecting him to special supervision ( for example , the administration placed his bed by the entrance door to the cell in order to be able to supervise him more effectively ) .

According to the applicant , he and his mother ( on his behalf ) brought the aforementioned matters to the attention of the colony administration and the prosecutor ’s office . However , their complaints were either not dispatched , ignored , or poorly investigated into .

As is evident from the case file , in DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged several complaints with various authorities , in which she referred to irregularities in the colony postal unit ’s handling of the applicant ’s correspondence and periodical subscriptions , a prohibition on the detainees keeping sugar in the cells , the poor heating of the colony ’s visitor hostel and the disappearance of CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) transferred by her to the applicant ’s account .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG acknowledged certain irregularities in the operation of the colony ’s postal unit in their responses to the applicant ’s mother and notified her that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the officer responsible , while the colony governor had been instructed to improve the oversight of the postal service operation . They further noted that the detainees were forbidden to keep sugar in the cells to prevent alcohol production by them and that in DATE the visitor accommodation had been equipped with movable radiators . Finally , they assured the applicant ’s mother that the money purportedly lost had been duly credited to the applicant ’s account .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother wrote a letter to ORG acknowledging an improvement in the delivery of the applicant ’s correspondence and thanking them for their intervention .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s mother complained on the applicant ’s behalf of deterioration in his health .

On DATE the applicant lodged a declaration with the colony governor , according to which he had developed skin and liver problems in DATE , but stating that he was now satisfied with the treatment he was receiving and had no further requests in this respect or complaints against colony medical staff .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE no . ORG in GPE ( “ FAC ” ) , which operated under a lower - security regime , to continue serving his sentence .

Having left GPE on DATE , the applicant arrived in ORG in DATE .

According to the applicant , the conditions of his transport were incompatible with his state of health and with human dignity . Long distances were covered in prison trains and shorter ones in prison vans . The transit took DATE because he was made to join various groups of prisoners making various shorter connections . The prison train carriages had compartments designed for CARDINAL to CARDINAL passengers , which were occupied by QUANTITY or more detainees and their belongings . The overcrowded compartments were not ventilated and in the summer heat ( QUANTITY ) the metal carriages overheated , making it hard to breathe . Reaching a destination took very long time , as upon arrival at an intermediate stop the cars often waited for TIME for additional prisoners to be brought to the station or for a new locomotive to be connected to the train . A distance that would be covered in TIME in a regular train could take TIME or more . The guards escorted the detainees to the bathroom only once TIME and there was no opportunity to go otherwise . The conditions of transport in the vans were also very uncomfortable . The vans had no windows and largely no ventilation . On many occasions they also took long stops and became overheated in the DATE sun , aggravating the symptoms of the applicant ’s heart and vascular problems and causing him to suffer intolerably .

The applicant further maintained that the physical conditions in the detention facilities which accommodated him as a detainee in transit between various train and van rides were likewise not suitable for habitation . For instance , the cell in PERSON had a window facing the inner corridor with no access to natural light . Cell no . CARDINAL in GPE was located in the basement . It was damp with water dripping from the ceiling and walls covered in mould . Both facilities were heavily overcrowded , with detainees taking turns to sleep , were poorly lit , ventilated and infested with insects . The sanitary facilities in them were not separated from DATE .

In addition to the poor physical conditions of detention and transport , the detainees in transit were also subjected to cruel and arbitrary practices by the convoy officers and prison guards . In particular , upon arrival and before departure they often had to spend TIME or so in overcrowded holding areas sitting in squat positions with their hands behind their heads . Guards also often made detainees assume a squat or other unnatural positions when moving somewhere , shouted , insulted , pushed and beat the prisoners , and performed unnecessary and degrading searches . The status of a prisoner in transit not having been sufficiently addressed in law and regulations , the administrative practice was not to provide them with bedding , not to segregate inmates sick with contagious diseases , and deny appropriate medical assistance or any communication with the outside world , including correspondence and visits .

According to the Government , the travel journals containing the particulars of the conditions of the applicant ’s transit had been destroyed . However , they asserted that the conditions of the applicant ’s transport and detention in transit points had been reasonably adapted to meeting his needs . Prison train carriages were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people . They contained large compartments measuring QUANTITY designed to accommodate CARDINAL people and smaller compartments of QUANTITY designed to accommodate CARDINAL people . It was permissible to put CARDINAL and QUANTITY people in large and smaller compartments respectively during trips that took TIME . All train cars were supplied with artificial ventilation and it was also possible to open a window . Prison vans measured QUANTITY inside and were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people in CARDINAL compartments ( CARDINAL larger ones designed for QUANTITY passengers each and CARDINAL small compartment for CARDINAL passengers ) . The vans had no windows , but they were equipped with vents and benches for sitting on .

Upon the applicant ’s arrival at FAC in DATE , his medical file was found to be missing .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to ORG concerning ORG administration ’s decision to allow the applicant ’s transfer in DATE heat and its failure to include his medical file in his travel documents .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office notified the applicant ’s mother that according to ORG records , the applicant ’s medical file had been properly handed over to the convoy officers escorting him out of the colony .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - Competent court);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of double murder . He remained in custody pending the investigation and trial .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder , accessory to murder and attempted fraud , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court comprised CARDINAL professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory - review complaint challenging the lawfulness of his conviction . He alleged , inter alia , that the trial court had not been a tribunal established by law , given that the lay judges who considered his case had been appointed to the tribunal in contravention of the applicable legislation .

On DATE the ORG of the LOC reduced the applicant ’s sentence by DATE , in compliance with the latest amendments to LAW .

On DATE the ORG of ORG of GPE received the case file for supervisory review .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for fresh consideration . Referring to the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) , the ORG noted that the lay judges had not been authorised to consider the applicant ’s case , which had affected the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the applicant ’s conviction . Lastly , the ORG ordered that the applicant be detained pending a new trial .

On DATE ORG fixed the preliminary hearing for DATE noting that the measure of preventive detention previously imposed on the applicant “ should remain unchanged ” . The parties did not inform the ORG of the outcome of the hearing of DATE . It appears that it was re - scheduled .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing of the case . The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing and made submissions to the court . The applicant asked the court to release him on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . He noted that he had already served over DATE of the earlier imposed prison sentence which rendered the further extension of his pre - trial detention unnecessary . The prosecutor discerned no change in the applicant ’s situation that would be in favour of the applicant ’s release and asked the court to extend the applicant ’s detention pending trial . The court fixed the new trial for DATE noting that the measure of preventive detention previously imposed on the applicant “ should remain unchanged ” . In particular , the court noted as follows :

“ Deciding on the preventive measure and having heard the parties to the proceedings , the court considers that the remand of the [ defendants ] in custody during preliminary investigation as a restrictive measure has been lawful and justified . There are no grounds to replace it with a more lenient measure ... in view of the gravity of the charges and the defendants’ character . ”

On DATE ORG opened the trial and on DATE it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment . The time already served by the applicant was set off against the newly imposed sentence . The court found that the applicant and PERSON . had killed PERSON and ORG . in an attempt to fraudulently obtain the proceeds from the sale of a flat owned by ORG The court comprised a single judge . The applicant was represented by a lawyer .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing and made submissions to the court .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE and DATE the applicant underwent outpatient treatment for overactive thyroid at FAC in GPE . She was treated by Dr S.

In DATE the applicant ’s health deteriorated ; she was examined at FAC in GPE and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism . From CARDINAL DATE to DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment for hypothyroidism at FAC . The applicant told the doctors that her hypothyroidism resulted from the treatment with a radiopharmaceutical , PERSON ( radioactive iodine ) , which Dr S. had administered to her DATE and DATE . The doctors from the FAC recorded in the applicant ’s medical file that the applicant suffered from hypothyroidism resulting from the treatment with radiopharmaceuticals . Eventually , the applicant lost her thyroid and was recognized as suffering from the second highest official degree of disability .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , Dr S. issued her a certificate stating that throughout DATE the applicant ’s treatment included injections of a radiopharmaceutical , namely radioactive iodine J-CARDINAL . PERSON did not specify the dosage or dates on which the applicant had received the injections .

In DATE and DATE the applicant complained to ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) that the radiopharmaceuticals administered to her by PERSON had seriously damaged her health .

The ORG invited the applicant to undergo a medical examination at CARDINAL of the hospitals in GPE , however she refused . ORG checked the records of FAC and found that they contained no data as regards the applicant ’s alleged treatment with radiopharmaceuticals . It was further noted that , according to the applicant ’s medical records , DATE her diagnosis had been unclear . That being the case , the treatment mentioned in the certificate of DATE had been inadequate . ORG recommended the Oncology Centre to dismiss PERSON for that reason . Shortly afterwards Dr S. retired from FAC of her own motion .

In DATE the applicant complained to the GPE prosecutor ’s office that PERSON had treated her with PERSON , that the treatment had been inadequate and that it had destroyed her thyroid . To support her complaint , the applicant submitted the certificate of DATE .

NORP In DATE an official investigation was launched into the applicant ’s complaint which was carried out initially by the prosecutors and later by the police . In the course of the investigation the applicant , PERSON and a number of other persons were questioned . Also , several forensic examinations were performed . A number of decisions were taken rejecting the applicant ’s complaint principally for the reason that , according to the forensic reports , it was impossible to establish the cause of the destruction of the applicant ’s thyroid . Those decisions were eventually quashed for incomplete investigation . The most recent decision in that regard was taken by ORG in GPE on DATE , by which it instructed the police to carry out further investigation in the applicant ’s case , finding inter alia that the police had failed to examine all pertinent evidence and that an additional forensic examination was necessary . The investigation has not been completed to date .


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

Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE . He has served sentences in several prisons . On DATE he was released from PERSON .

The applicant alleged that while detained in cell no . CARDINAL of TârguJiu Prison for DATE , DATE and DATE , he had not had an individual bed and had therefore been forced to sleep on the cold floor on CARDINAL blankets . As a consequence , the renal disease from which he suffered had been re - activated and he had experienced intense pain .

On DATE he had been examined by a prison doctor and had been prescribed medical treatment . However , he had been unable to submit any evidence in this connection as the prison authorities had rejected his requests for a copy of his medical records . He submitted instead an old medical certificate stating that on DATE he had been hospitalised in ORG of ORG suffering from renal colic .

The applicant lodged a complaint with the postsentencing judge asking for an individual bed .

His complaint was examined on DATE . The applicant informed the judge that he had eventually been given a bed , but only after DATE . The post - sentencing judge took note that the applicant had obtained an individual bed ; he did not draft an interlocutory judgment , but merely noted that the complaint had been withdrawn .

The applicant lodged a complaint with LOC Court seeking compensation in connection with the lack of an individual bed for DATE in cell no . CARDINAL of NORP .

On DATE the NORP - Jiu ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as inadmissible without examining its merits on account of the fact that the applicant had not submitted an interlocutory judgment by the post - sentencing judge in connection with his complaint .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits

On DATE the applicant was arrested and later charged under LAW with intentional infliction of a grave injury .

On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE granted the investigator ’s motion to place the applicant in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the same court decided , upon the applicant ’s motion , to release him on bail .

On DATE the investigator decided to cancel bail and to detain the applicant on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that on DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE decided , upon the applicant ’s appeal , to quash the investigator ’s decision and to release the applicant . ORG stated that , in accordance with LAW , detention could be imposed only by a court and was the court ’s prerogative . The investigator had therefore exceeded his authority and had incorrectly interpreted the law by imposing detention . The law required the investigator to apply to the court with a reasoned motion , if there were sufficient grounds to replace bail with detention . ORG found that the applicant ’s detention imposed on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE had violated his rights guaranteed under , inter alia , LAW and CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW .

On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE acquitted the applicant .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG , seeking pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in connection with the criminal proceedings against him , including his detention . The claim for pecuniary damage included alleged lost earnings , expenses related to food parcels received in detention and the transport costs of his relatives . The applicant estimated the non - pecuniary damage suffered by him at MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE decided to grant partially the applicant ’s claim for pecuniary damages and award him QUANTITY ( ORG ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) . As regards the claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG decided to dismiss it , with reference to LAW , on the ground that the NORP law did not provide for this type of compensation .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .

On an unspecified date ORG also lodged an appeal , contesting the judgment in its part concerning the award of pecuniary damages .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant ’s appeal and to grant that of ORG , reducing the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage to ORG MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) . As regards the claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG decided to terminate the proceedings on the ground that NORP law did not provide for this type of compensation and therefore that claim could not be examined by the court .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of ORG .


CASE OF ANZHELO GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Remainder inadmissible;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);Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

The applicants worked for a private company ( “ the company ” ) . The company is CARDINAL of the main Internet service providers in the city of GPE ; it operated out of CARDINAL offices in GPE , both of which were located on the same street . The first applicant was the company ’s manager ; the second , third and fourth applicants were employees of the company ; the fifth applicant was a freelance expert providing services to the company at the time of the events .

On DATE ORG initiated criminal proceedings ( досъдебно производство ) against a person unknown , suspected of disseminating materials in violation of intellectual property laws by using the company ’s servers during DATE and thus committing a continuous offence as defined in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The proceedings were not directed at anyone specifically at the company . The prosecutor ’s order for opening criminal proceedings comprised the following instructions : that the facts be established ; that unlicensed software be identified and seized , and a forensic examination be carried out in respect of it ; that the results be discussed with the prosecutor without delay ; and that the investigation be carried out by officers of ORG ) .

The following facts are undisputed between the parties .

Following the prosecutor ’s order of DATE , a special police operation was carried out on DATE in CARDINAL of the company ’s offices located in the same street in GPE . The operation was aimed at the search and seizure of illegal software and was carried out pursuant to the instructions of the supervising prosecutor . Ya . PERSON , a ORG officer and the head of the operation , had given the operational instructions to the officers involved shortly before the operation began . Those instructions were to enter the company ’s premises as quickly as possible , to overpower all individuals found there in order to prevent them from interfering with any electronic evidence , and to seize the computer equipment found in the offices . A district court judge confirmed the validity of the searchandseizure operation within TIME of its having taken place . A number of computers and black boxes , the latter referred to in the searchand - seizure reports as “ computer systems ” , as well as one folder of paper documents , were seized in the presence of certifying witnesses during the operation . The manager of the company , PERSON , was not present in the company ’s offices when the operation took place . The second applicant was working in the first company office at the time of the operation and the third , fourth and fifth applicants were present in the second company office .

The parties disagree in particular in respect of whether the force used by some of the ORG officers during the above - mentioned operation had been provoked by the applicants and therefore whether it had been excessive or absolutely necessary in the circumstances .

The applicants , in their complaints to the prosecutor on DATE about having been ill - treated during the operation DATE , described the conduct of the operation as follows .

PERSON , the first applicant , submitted that on DATE ORG officers barged into CARDINAL offices of the company , having broken the entrance doors to CARDINAL of the offices . Then , he claimed , they had broken the cameras in the first office , ordered the employees found there , including the second applicant , to lie on the ground and hit them with electroshock batons , as well as kicked them in the chest and the head despite the absence of any resistance or provocation . The first applicant also claimed that a similar situation had arisen in the second company office . Copies of medical certificates , evidencing injuries allegedly sustained by several employees during those events , were enclosed with the complaint .

Kameliya Ivanova Dekova , the second applicant , submitted that at TIME on DATE masked armed men had cut the lock of the entrance door to the company ’s first office where she was working , saying they were police . Then , she claimed , they had made her lie on the ground and had kicked her in the chest and head , as well as applied electroshock discharges from a baton - like device to her body before handcuffing her . She had not resisted in any way and had done nothing to provoke such treatment . CARDINAL of the masked men had been shouting threats and insults at her and her colleagues present in the office , including threatening to shoot a firearm .

PERSON , the third applicant , submitted in particular that he had heard loud bangs on the entrance door of the company ’s second office at TIME on DATE . After a colleague had opened the door , men had rushed in , pushed and shoved him and then handcuffed him to the window grill . While he was still attached to the grill , they had applied electroshock discharges from a baton to his abdominal area .

Nikolay PERSON , the fourth applicant , submitted that at TIME on DATE several armed masked men had broken into the company ’s second office , where he was at the time . Although he had not resisted in any way , they had hit him in the face and his lip had started bleeding . They had handcuffed his arms behind his back and then made him stay on his knees for TIME during which time they had continuously insulted him .

Pavel PERSON , the fifth applicant , submitted that at TIME on DATE , while he had been working in the company ’s second office together with CARDINAL other colleagues , he had heard strong bangs on the door and shouts “ Open ! Police ! ” . As soon as a colleague of his had opened the door , several men had thrown Mr PERSON to the ground , then had handcuffed his arms behind his back and dragged him outside . Next they had made him remain crouching with his hands cuffed behind his back for TIME . They had asked no questions of him or his colleagues nor asked them to produce their identity documents ; instead , they had ordered the employees in the office to keep quiet .

Some of the CARDINAL employees , including the second , third , fourth and fifth applicants , who were heard during the inquiry on CARDINAL and DATE following the ORG complaints ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stated that police officers had cut open the entrance door to the first of the company ’s offices in which they had been working on the afternoon of DATE . Following that the officers had hit them in the face , kicked them , stepped with a boot on their heads , applied electroshock discharges on them which had caused them very strong pain and a feeling of paralysis , insulted them and continuously shouted at them to keep silent . The officers had been wearing what some employees described as “ helmets ” and “ hoods ” on their heads . They had been dressed in black police uniforms and had been armed with machine guns . Once the masked officers had noticed that there were cameras on the LOC , they had signaled this to each other and stopped hitting the employees . Shortly afterwards civilian police officers had entered the office LOC ; none of the civilian officers had illtreated any of the employees .

The Government submitted to the ORG statements of CARDINAL police officers who had taken part in the operation . The statements were given to the prosecution on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , as part of a preliminary inquiry carried out into the allegations of the company ’s employees that they had been ill - treated by the police at the time of the operation . The Government also submitted to the ORG the statements of CARDINAL employees of the company given to the prosecution during the same inquiry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Officers from the ORG who had participated in the operation were heard during the inquiry in DATE in GPE following instructions of the FAC prosecutors . The ORG officers submitted that , prior to the operation they had received information from operative police sources and various media publications , that the company was connected to organised criminal groups . Given that the employees had refused to open the door to one of the offices which had been disguised as a family apartment , masked police officers had had to cut it open in order to prevent the destruction of evidence . The other office had been opened from inside by employees . ORG officers ( it was not specified who or how many ) had entered through the window into yet a third “ hidden ” office , thus “ taking by surprise an employee found there who was attempting to destroy evidence ” ; they had handcuffed that employee , and then an unspecified person had opened the door to that office with a key . During the operation the company ’s employees had refused to comply with the police orders and had actively disobeyed the officers , thus obstructing the operation . The officers had not used electroshock on any employee . They had used handcuffs on individual members of staff who had refused to open the entrance door or to move away from their computer stations and who had continued to erase data from the computers instead . The wife of the company ’s manager had behaved arrogantly towards the officers , insulting and threatening them with revenge , and had ordered the employees to continue with their work .

Officers of ORG ( “ Областна FAC GPE FAC ” or “ ORG ” ) who were heard during the inquiry in DATE in GPE submitted that they had been called in to assist their colleagues from the ORG in an operation to find company servers containing unlicensed software , films and music . None of the ORG officers had been masked . They had not been involved in the opening of the entrance doors to the company ’s offices as that had been done by masked officers from the ORG . They had entered the office LOC after the doors had been opened . They had seen some masked officers on the company LOC but had not seen what they had done . Some of them had heard calls of “ Open ! Police ! ” during a period of TIME and after that the sound of an electric grinder . They had not witnessed any physical force being used against any employee . Some of the ORG officers had seen in the first office several women – none of whom bore any sign of injury – sitting on chairs guarded by CARDINAL masked officers ; in the entrance hall leading to the second office they had seen several company employees , some wearing handcuffs . While the ORG officers had been waiting for the entrance doors to the offices to be opened , they had thought it likely that the company employees would delete most if not all of the information sought to be collected during the operation . All the employees had been calm and , at times , the officers had let them smoke outside the building before asking them to return inside to wait until the conclusion of the search - and - seizure operation . After officers had brought in another woman called ORG , acting as the manager of the company , CARDINAL computer systems were seized in her presence and in the presence of several certifying witnesses . The ORG officers had left at TIME

On DATE , DATE after the police operation , at their request , a forensic expert examined PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , respectively the second , third and fifth applicants .

According to the medical reports , PERSON had a swollen right upper eyelid and a swelling and a cut next to her right eyebrow , a bruise and an abrasion in her right armpit , CARDINAL reddish - brown burns on and below her right shoulder blade and bruises on her right thigh and arm . The conclusion of the medical expert was that the burns on her back were of first to second degree and it was plausible that they had been sustained from not CARDINAL strikes with an electroshock baton at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant . PERSON had a jaw injury , injuries to both arms , an injury and an open wound in the abdominal area and CARDINAL reddish strips on his abdomen . Mr PERSON had CARDINAL long bruises around his left armpit which could have been the result of pressure applied with non - sharp , hard objects , possibly squeezing by hands . The medical expert concluded that the bruises and injuries could have been caused by blows with or against a blunt object , and that the injuries described above had caused the second , third and fifth applicant pain and suffering , and the second applicant also temporary non - life - threatening health disorder .

On DATE the applicants , and CARDINAL other individuals , complained to the prosecutor , in particular , that masked men had broken into CARDINAL of the company ’s offices DATE and had used violence towards them , as well as shouting and insulting . Because the officers had been masked , they could not identify them . Civilian officers who had entered the office premises in order to search and seize computer equipment after the masked men had broken in had not mistreated the company employees . The prosecutor took the ORG statements which are summarised in CARDINAL above . They submitted the medical certificates drawn up on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

A preliminary inquiry into the above complaints was opened DATE after the operation took place . During DATE , DATE and DATE , investigators took statements from CARDINAL officers who had participated in the operation and CARDINAL staff members of the company who had been present during the operation . The police statements are summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL above and the GPE statements are summarized in paragraph CARDINAL above . The Government did not submit , and the documents in the file do not show , that any other investigative steps , apart from the questioning of several police officers and the company ’s employees , were carried out .

The questions put to the officers during the inquiry were : CARDINAL ) NORP whether during the operation any employee had disobeyed or showed manifest lack of cooperation ; CARDINAL ) NORP whether any of the masked officers had used electroshock batons against any employee and , if yes , why ; CARDINAL ) who among the officers ( masked or not ) had used physical force and auxiliary means for restraint ( помощни средства ) , against whom of the employees , in which of the company ’s offices and why ; CARDINAL ) NORP officers from which police department ( specialised in breaking into LOC or in arresting individuals ) had taken part in the operation ; and CARDINAL ) NORP whether the entrance doors to the company ’s offices had been opened voluntarily or whether they had to be forced open .

All the officers heard during the inquiry stated that they had learned about the police operation of DATE and had been called to assist with it earlier on DATE ; none of them had used force against the applicants , apart from handcuffing individuals who had disobeyed the ORG orders ; no electroshock discharges had been applied to anyone . Not all police officers answered all questions asked as part of the inquiry .

The inquiry ended with a decision of ORG of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings , finding that the officers involved in the operation had not exceeded the prerogatives vested in them by law . Upon appeal by the applicants , on DATE ORG returned the case with instructions that further acts be carried out ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , third sentence ) . More specifically , he observed that the file did not contain any documents showing that criminal proceedings had been opened against the applicants . Likewise , there was no information in the file showing that a search - and - seizure operation had been carried out and that it had been authorised by a judge . No information on file showed either that evidence had actually been found on the LOC searched , or that there had been reasonable suspicion that evidence could have been found there . The prosecutor held that the scant assertions of several police officers who had been heard during the preliminary inquiry were not sufficient to establish the circumstances as recorded in the refusal to open criminal proceedings of DATE . Consequently , additional investigative acts had to be carried out . The higher prosecutor asked , in particular , that copies be collected of the orders for opening criminal proceedings on suspicion of violating intellectual property laws and for bringing charges on those grounds , as well as records of the search - and - seizure operation and “ other documents of importance for the inquiry ” . It is unclear whether any investigative steps were taken thereafter .

On DATE the ORG , to whom the file was sent for competence reasons following a legislative amendment , refused to open criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against the police officers . She found that a special police operation aimed at gaining access to the offices of the company and seizing unlicensed software had been carried out on DATE . The initial information available had been that the company had connections with organised criminal groups and that its main activity was the collecting and disseminating of unlicensed software . Officers from ORG had been in charge of the operation ; masked officers from ORG “ Operational Intervention ” ( сектор “ Оперативна реализация ” ) and officers from different units of ORG , had taken part in the operation . Following a preparatory briefing session , at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL in the afternoon the officers had tried to enter the office premises of the company . Someone on the inside had locked the front door ; following this , the company ’s employees had gone to their computers and started deleting data sought by the police . The employees had not complied with several orders by the police officers to open the doors . Acting upon the instructions to enter the company ’s LOC rapidly and to establish full control over all individuals there without giving them the opportunity to erase data or to obstruct the seizure of computers , the ORG officers had cut the entrance door lock to the building , thus breaking into the LOC . They had then ordered all the individuals found there to lie on the floor and refrain from touching the computer equipment . However , the company ’s employees had disobeyed the orders and , using different pretexts , had remained instead in front of their work stations , acting so as to delete information from the company ’s computers . The officers had used physical force , electroshock batons and handcuffs in respect of some of the employees to overcome their resistance and prevent them from touching the computers located on the LOC . During the operation , some employees had been knocked over . Those findings had been corroborated by the statements of all persons , civilians and police officers , collected during the inquiry , as well as by documents submitted by ORG . The prosecutor further found , on the basis of medical reports , that some complainants ( without naming them ) had sustained injuries during the operation and that they could not identify the officers who had caused the injuries as the latter had been wearing masks . The prosecutor concluded that it had been established unequivocally during the inquiry that the injuries sustained by the civilians during the police operation of DATE had been the result of the use of force and auxiliary means for restraint by police officers in order to overcome the ORG resistance and to prevent them from destroying crucial evidence for the ongoing criminal proceedings . The officers had not exceeded their statutory right under section CARDINAL of ORG to use force , as they had been faced with refusals to obey their orders . The material collected during the inquiry had shown that the searchandseizure operation had been carried out in accordance with the instructions of the supervising prosecutor and had been approved by a judge . The prosecutor concluded that the police officers involved had not committed a criminal offence .

Following an appeal by the applicants and CARDINAL of the other complainants , on DATE ORG ( “ PERSON ORG Варна ” ) upheld the lower prosecutor ’s decision . He held , in particular , that the officers had used force for the purposes of gathering physical evidence and in compliance with the applicable legislation .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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