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

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE . As of DATE , he was serving a life sentence in ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE his representative informed the ORG about the applicant ’s new address , which was PERSON ( GPE ) , without any further details .

On DATE ( or CARDINAL according to ORG ) DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder . According to the applicant , the police subjected him to various forms of ill - treatment following his arrest .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery , CARDINAL counts of murder , and unlawful possession of firearms . The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of property .

The applicant appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

The applicant was detained in the following detention facilities :

ORG ( “ the GPE ” , a part of the police system ) : from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( during the intervening period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was undergoing a forensic psychiatric examination in a psychiatric hospital ) ;

the Simferopol Pre - Trial Detention Centre ( “ the GPE ” ) : from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL May to DATE ;

the GPE : from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL May and from DATE ;

the GPE : from CARDINAL to DATE ( that is during the time when the applicant ’s case was examined by ORG ) ;

the GPE : from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( the applicant raised no complaints in respect of his detention there ) ; and

ORG no . CARDINAL : from DATE .

NORP The applicant did not specify the cells in which he had been detained . According to him , he was held in an overcrowded , cold and damp cell located in a basement and lacking fresh air and sufficient daylight . He also alleged that he had not been provided with any bed linen . Furthermore , he was allegedly deprived of access to shower and had no facilities for shaving . Nor could he enjoy any outdoor walks . The nutrition was allegedly very poor and did not correspond to the applicant ’s needs given his health condition .

The applicant further submitted that , although he was suffering from active tuberculosis , he had had to share his cell with healthy inmates , which had provoked conflicts .

According to the applicant , when he was transferred back to the ORG on DATE after his forensic psychiatric examination , the temperature in his cell was very low . Nonetheless , the ORG administration withheld his warm clothes . As a result , the applicant allegedly caught bronchitis and pneumonia .

The Government submitted that they were not able to provide details as to the specific cells , in which the applicant had been detained , because the relevant records had been destroyed with the passage of the envisaged period of their storage . The Government therefore provided information about all the cells of the ORG based on the information note issued by the ORG ’s governor on DATE .

As specified in that information note , the ORG had CARDINAL cells able to accommodate up to CARDINAL inmates . CARDINAL of those cells were identical : each of them measured CARDINAL sq . m. and was designated for CARDINAL persons . The eighth cell measured CARDINAL sq . m. and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . And , lastly , there was a bigger cell , measuring CARDINAL sq . metres , which was designated for CARDINAL persons .

All the cells were located in a semi - basement . Each of them had a window and was equipped with a forced ventilation system .

The cells had beds for each inmate , a table , a lavatory and a washstand with centralised water supply . There was also centralised heating in the ORG functioning during DATE ( end of autumn , DATE and beginning of DATE ) .

According to the Government , the inmates were provided with all the required bed linen in the ORG .

According to the information note issued by the governor of the Simferopol GPE on DATE at the request of ORG , the applicant was detained in the following cells :

from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL ;

from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL ;

from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL ;

from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE in cell no . DATE ; and

from DATE , from CARDINAL to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . DATE .

Cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were ordinary cells , which the applicant shared with CARDINAL other inmates for most of the time . According to the applicant , however , starting from DATE his cell - mates were transferred to other cells and he remained alone in cell no . CARDINAL . Cells nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE belonged to the maximum security unit and the applicant was in solitary confinement there .

The case file contains a copy of the GPE governor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE about the applicant ’s placement in a separate cell of the maximum security unit on the ground of the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis ( the applicant was then diagnosed with active tuberculosis ) .

Given that in DATE the numbering of the GPE cells had been changed , the Government found it impossible to locate with precision each cell , in which the applicant had been detained . They , however , submitted that all the cells of the same category ( ordinary or maximum security ) had the same characteristics .

According to the information provided by the ORG , each of the cells had a double - glazed window enabling natural ventilation and penetration of daylight . All the cells were equipped with ventilating equipment , water supply and sewerage , as well centralised heating . There was all the required furniture in the cells .

According to the applicant , his cells were cold and damp . The window in cell no . CARDINAL was allegedly not glazed and the inmates had to cover it with blankets and plastic bags .

NORP The maximum security cells were allegedly very small and had poor lighting and ventilation . The applicant also submitted that the toilet had not been separated from the living area and smelled of excrement . There was no hot water supply and cold water was supplied irregularly .

Furthermore , the nutrition was allegedly very basic often being limited to bread , porridge and soup with sour cabbage . According to the Government , however , the nutrition for the detainees had been in accordance with the applicable legal requirements .

Lastly , the applicant submitted that the special “ life prisoner ” uniform had been too small for him , which had caused him discomfort and had provoked mockery by other inmates . The Government noted , without further details , that wearing a special uniform was a legal requirement .

According to the applicant , he was detained in a solitary cell measuring QUANTITY in a semi - basement . It had a concrete floor and was equipped with a bench , which was also made of concrete . The light in the cell was very poor . The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell .

The Government did not make any submissions in respect of the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in the GPE .

The applicant was held in a solitary cell , in allegedly poor conditions . Furthermore , he was allegedly denied the opportunity to use the common shower facilities . Instead , on CARDINAL and DATE he was locked for TIME in a small room equipped with a cold - water tap on the level of his stomach . As the temperature inside was very low , he preferred not to wash himself . The applicant had therefore no access to warm shower for the entire period of his detention in GPE ( from DATE ) .

The Government did not comment on this period of the applicant ’s detention .

The applicant , being a life prisoner , was transferred from one cell to DATE . According to him , all the cells , in which he had been detained ( he mentioned , in particular , cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) were damp and cold . In some of them , the walls were covered with mold and fungus .

Furthermore , the prison cells allegedly lacked sufficient daylight and fresh air . They were not ventilated artificially and the only access to fresh air was through a window , which could not be opened wider than QUANTITY . The applicant also submitted that the windows were closed during the inmates’ daily outdoor walks , as the cells were then being disinfected by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation lamps .

The applicant specified the size and population of CARDINAL cells : cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and was shared by CARDINAL inmates ; and cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL inmates .

During the period from DATE to DATE there were major repairs in the prison , which had allegedly caused the applicant such inconveniences as having to bear with a high level of noise and inhaling construction dust and paint smells .

The applicant further submitted that the yard for outdoor walks ( which lasted TIME per day ) had no shelter to protect detainees from rain or sun .

According to the Government , the conditions of detention in the prison were in compliance with the standards established by ORG .

On DATE an official of ORG in charge of the supervision of lawfulness in penitentiaries , a representative of ORG human rights monitors in law - enforcement institutions , as well as the governor and the deputy governor of the prison , conducted “ a monitoring visit ” of the prison . According to their report , all the maximum security cells were located below the ground level and were damp . Cell no . CARDINAL ( in which the applicant was detained at the time ) measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . It had sufficient daylight and artificial light . It was , however , impossible for inmates to switch on / off the light or to regulate its brightness . The cell had natural ventilation and the window could be opened from inside . There was centralised heating , but at the time of the visit the weather was warm and the heating was off . The toilet was separated from the living area . There was a washstand , but the water tap was leaking . There were minor flood traces on the ceiling , which the administration explained by a recent accident .

On an unspecified date in DATE the deputy governor of the prison issued an information note about the conditions of detention in that prison at the request of ORG . It stated , in particular , that cell no . CARDINAL had a window of QUANTITY , one CARDINAL lamp and TIME watch light ( CARDINALV ) . The prison official also stated that DATE the maximum security unit of the prison had undergone major refurbishments . In DATE some minor repairs were carried out in cell no . CARDINAL .

The Government submitted CARDINAL photographs of cell no . CARDINAL , showing a spacious and light room in a visually good state of repair . According to the applicant , those photographs had been taken after his detention in that cell and were of no relevance for his case .

According to the information provided by the Government , the prison cells were disinfected on a DATE basis during the detainees’ outdoor walks . The applicant noted that this did not happen when inmates chose not to go for a walk because of poor weather conditions .

As further submitted by the ORG , cells for smear - positive and smear - negative inmates were located on different floors and had separate shower facilities , X - ray examination rooms and walking yards . The applicant specified that it had not been so before DATE .

Prior to his detention the applicant had been suffering from chronic hepatitis , neurocirculatory asthenia , varicose veins , and astigmatism of both eyes . It is not known whether he had undergone any medical treatment in that connection .

Furthermore , in DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis for the first time . In DATE his tuberculosis disease was considered to have developed in a chronic form .

On DATE the applicant was admitted for inpatient treatment to the GPE regional tuberculosis dispensary .

On DATE he was discharged from it on the ground of his refusal from the treatment and his continued absence .

On DATE the applicant was re - admitted to the aforementioned dispensary for treatment .

DATE . On DATE he was discharged on the ground of his persistent breaches of the treatment regimen and the dispensary ’s rules .

According to an information note issued by the dispensary ’s chief doctor at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE , during his treatment there in DATE the applicant had been administered anti - tuberculosis medicines of the first and the second lines .

On DATE the applicant was recognised as falling within the third category of disability ( the mildest ) on account of his tuberculosis disease .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination upon his admission to the Simferopol ITT . As recorded in the ORG ’s journal , the applicant informed the doctor about his tuberculosis disease , but did not raise any complaints .

On DATE the ORG governor wrote to the PERSON prosecutor that , according to the conclusion of a tuberculosis specialist of DATE , the applicant was suffering from an active form of tuberculosis and required further examination and inpatient treatment in a hospital environment . At the time of writing he was , however , detained in the ORG as an ordinary detainee . The ORG governor requested the prosecutor to help in organising the applicant ’s transfer to a tuberculosis dispensary . It appears that there was no follow up to that request .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s admission to the psychiatric hospital for his forensic psychiatric examination , a tuberculosis specialist examined him . The applicant complained of coughing with purulent sputum , general weakness , breathlessness and a considerable loss of weight . He was diagnosed with active fibrous - cavernous pulmonary tuberculosis at the stage of infiltration and was prescribed isoniazid , rifampicin , pyrazinamide , ethambutol , streptomycin and some other medications and vitamins .

On DATE , while still in the psychiatric hospital , the applicant was X - rayed and repeatedly examined by a tuberculosis specialist . The doctor confirmed the earlier diagnosis and recommended the continuation of the medicinal treatment , subsequent monitoring of the applicant ’s condition and his isolation .

On DATE the applicant was transferred back to PERSON . According to him , his medical treatment for tuberculosis was disrupted at that point .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s transfer to the Simferopol SIZO , a panel of doctors , including a tuberculosis specialist , examined him . He was prescribed with : isoniazid , rifampicin , pyrazinamide , ethambutol and streptomycin – for an intensive treatment phase ( for the periods from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) and isoniazid , rifampicin and pyrazinamide – for a follow - up treatment phase ( for the periods from DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) .

According to the applicant ’s medical file , he was provided with the prescribed medications on a DATE basis . Furthermore , during his detention in the PERSON the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and underwent sputum smear testing on a DATE basis . He also had regular chest X - ray examinations . The applicant ’s diagnosis remained the same and his X - raying showed no changes in the state of his lungs . The applicant ’s medical file pertaining to his pre - trial detention contains no reference to his drug susceptibility test .

The applicant complained to various authorities , in particular , about his solitary confinement , which he did not consider to be justified on medical grounds . On DATE an official of the regional office of ORG for ORG wrote to the applicant that he was the only detainee suffering from an active form of tuberculosis and his isolation was justified . He was receiving regular medical treatment . Furthermore , as stated in the letter , he had undergone drug susceptibility testing carried out with the participation of the PERSON city tuberculosis dispensary .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the Simferopol SIZO to ORG no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant arrived in ORG no . CARDINAL having the status of a penitentiary tuberculosis hospital ( before his arrival in the prison he had been detained in the GPE and GPE SIZOs ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , where he allegedly received no medical treatment ) .

NORP Immediately after the applicant ’s arrival in the prison , a panel of doctors examined him and diagnosed him with : chronic pulmonary tuberculosis , chronic hepatitis in an aggravation phase , neurocirculatory asthenia , varicose veins , and astigmatism of both eyes . He was placed in the prison ’s medical unit for inpatient treatment .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s complaint about heartache , weakness and loss of appetite , he was examined by a general practitioner who diagnosed him with chronic hepatitis in an aggravation phase and neurocirculatory asthenia of cardiac type . The doctor prescribed some medications to the applicant and recommended that he undergo an electrocardiogram . It appears that the above recommendation had not been implemented . As the applicant continued raising the same complaints , a general practitioner again examined him on DATE and DATE . He confirmed the earlier diagnoses and prescribed medications .

Furthermore , in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as in DATE and DATE , an ophthalmologist diagnosed the applicant with astigmatism of both eyes and prescribed eyeglasses for him . It is not known whether the applicant received the eyeglasses according to the prescription .

The applicant ’s chest X - raying in DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) showed that his tuberculosis disease was progressing .

On DATE the applicant underwent a drug susceptibility test , which established that he was resistant to isoniazid , rifampicin , pyrazinamide , ethambutol and streptomycin . His treatment was therefore corrected and he was prescribed different medicines ( such as kanamycin , ethambutol , para - aminosalicylic acid , ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin ) .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was recognised as falling into the second category of disability on account of his tuberculosis disease ( for a period of DATE , with his condition to be reassessed thereafter ) .

DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s X - raying showed negative developments in his lungs .

His subsequent X - ray examinations on CARDINAL and DATE indicated that his condition “ was becoming stable ” . Accordingly , the applicant ’s treatment was changed from inpatient to outpatient .

In DATE his tuberculosis disease progressed again . As a result , on DATE he was referred again to the prison ’s medical unit for inpatient treatment .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant refused to take the anti - tuberculous medicines .

On DATE and DATE he also refused from X - raying .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant refused that his blood samples be taken for analysis .

On DATE and DATE the applicant underwent further X - ray examinations of his chest , which showed no changes in his lungs .

On DATE a neurologist diagnosed the applicant with cervical spine osteochondrosis and recommended him to put a hard surface ( something like a wood shield ) beneath his matrass . According to the applicant , the prison administration did not allow him to do that .

DATE . On DATE and DATE the applicant refused to take the anti - tuberculous medicines .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE his X - raying showed no changes in his condition .

As indicated in the applicant ’s medical records , on DATE his treatment was corrected . He was prescribed with : pyrazinamide , para - aminosalicylic acid , capreomycin , ofloxacin and cycloserine .

On DATE , CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had his chest X - rayed again . Like before , no changes in his lungs were reported .

On DATE the applicant agreed in writing to palliative care . He wrote that he was aware of the reasons and consequences of that decision and that he had taken it without any pressure .

On DATE the prison administration wrote a letter to the applicant ’s mother in reply to her complaint , in particular , regarding his medical care . The prison governor stated that the applicant ’s treatment for tuberculosis had been without effect for a long period of time , as he had developed multi - resistance to all possible anti - tuberculosis drugs . Accordingly , it had been proposed to the applicant that his treatment be confined to palliative care and he had accepted that proposal . It was explained in the letter that the palliative care consisted of the administration of CARDINAL anti - tuberculosis drugs of the first line ( isoniazid and rifampicin ) regardless of the applicant ’s resistance to them . As rifampicin was not available in the prison , it had been replaced with ethambutol . Lastly , the prison official wrote that the palliative care had been prescribed to the applicant for life .

On DATE ORG and PERSON , to which the applicant ’s mother had also complained about his medical treatment in detention , responded to her . The director of ORG wrote that , as it appeared from the medical file , the applicant ’s tuberculosis disease had become incurable . Accordingly , the prospects of its treatment were deplorable regardless of the place of that treatment . Lastly , as noted in the letter , it was open for the applicant to apply for release on the ground of his incurable infectious disease .

As confirmed by a record in the applicant ’s file of CARDINAL DATE , his X - ray examinations had not shown any positive changes in the state of his lungs since DATE . More specifically , the lung cavities were not disappearing .

On DATE the prison doctors recommended to continue the applicant ’s inpatient treatment according to the prescribed regimen .

There is no information in the case file regarding the applicant ’s health condition and treatment thereafter .

On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to ORG , in which he complained , in particular , about the physical conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care .

On DATE the Registry sent him an application form and accompanying explanatory documents and instructed him to submit a duly completed and signed application form within DATE from the date of receipt of the ORG ’s letter .

In DATE the ORG received several copies of the completed application form from the applicant , in which he elaborated , in particular , on the complaints , which he had outlined in his initial letter to the ORG , including about the conditions of his detention in the PERSON , GPE and ORG . According to him ( and confirmed by his CARDINAL cell - mates ) , he had attempted to send his application form on DATE , but the administration of the Simferopol SIZO had refused to dispatch it unless he deleted any complaints about his conditions of detention there . The applicant also submitted that the domestic courts had rejected his requests for access to some documents in his case file , which he intended to enclose to his application form , on the ground that he had already received copies of those documents , which was confirmed by his signature . Furthermore , the administration of the Simferopol SIZO allegedly refused to produce copies of some documents at the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG supplementing his application form with a complaint about poor physical conditions of detention and inadequate medical care in the ORG prison .


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the small village of PERSON , which forms part of ORG , a resort town located in LOC in the GPE - GPE of GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the Executive Committee ” ) allotted a plot of land next to the applicant ’s house to GPE ORG to build a new cemetery ( “ the new cemetery ” ) .

As is evident from the photographs submitted by the applicant , as of the date when they were taken ( which is not specified ) her land was adjacent to the cemetery . The house where she and her family lived was located QUANTITY from the cemetery boundary . The applicant ’s yard was separated from the cemetery by a wire mesh fence . The nearest row of graves was QUANTITY from the fence ( QUANTITY from the house ) and was clearly visible from the applicant ’s yard . The part of the cemetery captured on the pictures contained over CARDINAL graves , some freshly decorated with wreaths .

According to the applicant ’s statements , at the time , when she lodged the present application , her family was routinely disturbed in its DATE life by the sight of funeral processions and the sound of people mourning by the graves . In hot weather unpleasant smells sometimes emanated from the cemetery . In addition , the well from which the applicant ’s family drew water for drinking and other household needs was situated QUANTITY from the cemetery and they were worried it could become contaminated with the by - products of human decomposition .

The applicant contacted various authorities on numerous occasions , complaining that the distance between her house and the new cemetery was QUANTITY required by law as a sanitary “ health protection ” zone .

On DATE ORG ’s Sanitary Officer banned burials in the new cemetery as its location was in breach of applicable sanitary standards .

On DATE ORG took a further decision proscribing burials in the new cemetery .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant received authorisation from the municipality to bury her son in the old cemetery in PERSON ( “ the old cemetery ” ) in exchange for a promise not to contest the location of the new cemetery .

On DATE ORG overturned its previous decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in response to complaints from GPE PERSON ’s congregation members and village residents that no other suitable burial ground was available .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings seeking the revocation of ORG decision of DATE and the prohibition of burials . She noted , in particular , that the distance between her house and the cemetery was CARDINAL . That was in breach of applicable sanitary rules , which were justified by the fact that toxins from decomposing corpses could seep into the ground water and contaminate an area around the cemetery as large as QUANTITY . Locating the cemetery so close to the applicant ’s home had put her life and health at risk . The applicant also claimed non - pecuniary damages for her sufferings .

On DATE the ORG found the decision of DATE unlawful as the applicant ’s house had been located within the sanitary health protection zone , which had been illegal . It ordered ORG to proscribe the burials . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the ORG initiated enforcement proceedings , however , no steps preventing the burials were taken .

On DATE the acting chief sanitary officer of the IvanoFrankivsk Region sent a letter to the mayor of ORG , demanding that he take urgent measures to bring the new cemetery in PERSON into conformity with the applicable law . He noted , in particular , that the CARDINAL sanitary health protection zone had been established to prevent water and soil pollution and the spread of infectious diseases . Allowing burials QUANTITY from the applicant ’s house was not in conformity with sanitary rules .

On DATE the ORG found that ORG had failed to act to enforce the judgment of DATE , but dismissed the applicant ’s claim for non - pecuniary damages arising from the bailiffs’ inaction .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings concerning the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were terminated on the grounds that enforcement was impossible because ORG members refused to vote to proscribe the burials .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant instituted further proceedings against ORG , seeking to compel it to stop burials and to pay her non - pecuniary damages for her suffering .

On DATE the ORG found for the applicant in part . It noted that ORG had failed to take all the necessary steps to prevent unlawful burials on the disputed land and ordered it to take the requisite measures . At the same time , the applicant ’s claim for damages was rejected . The decision became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted .

At many of its meetings ORG discussed draft decisions banning burials , however , they were never approved by a vote as no suitable alternative location for the cemetery could be found .

On several occasions ORG imposed fines on ORG for failure to comply with the judgments .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated because of the impossibility of enforcement as members of the ORG refused to vote against the burials .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it had been unable to relocate the cemetery in view of the unavailability of other suitable land . It was further noted that they were continuing to look for alternatives and , in particular , were negotiating to acquire a plot from the PERSON forestry authority .

On DATE the applicant requested that the mayor of ORG consider resettling her family and proposed that ORG acquire another house for her . She suggested a specific house that was for sale at the material time , which , according to her , was comparable to her present house .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the municipal authorities were ready to consider the applicant ’s resettlement as an option . However , the town had no funds in its budget to buy the proposed house at that time .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG refused to re - institute the enforcement proceedings in view of the impossibility of enforcement .

According to the ORG , the municipality has not authorised any burials in the new cemetery since DATE owing to the applicant ’s continued protests and the old cemetery has been used instead .


Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

ORG The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Kārsavas novads .

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

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of office .

Between DATE and DATE the applicant was in pre - trial custody . On DATE he was placed under police supervision .

On DATE the prosecution issued an order suspending the applicant from office on the grounds that if he remained in office he could obstruct the investigation . The order stated that the applicant would be suspended during the pre - trial investigation .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to a court .

The applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused were brought before FAC ( PERSON rajona tiesa ) for the main trial .

According to the indictment , on DATE the applicant , in his official capacity as customs officer and acting in concert with other individuals , had processed documents for a vehicle that had not crossed the State border and had not exported goods .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of aggravated abuse of office under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , in the wording in force until DATE .

ORG considered that the applicant had committed a serious crime with one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances . It took into consideration the applicant ’s good character references and the fact that he had no previous convictions . Referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( lex mitior ) and section CARDINAL of that PERSON ( determination of sentence where the right to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time has not been respected ) , ORG considered it appropriate to impose a non - custodial sentence , namely , compulsory work , without any ancillary penalty .

In that regard , relying on section CARDINAL of GPE ( right to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time ) , ORG reasoned as follows :

“ Completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time is related to the volume of a case , its legal complexity , number of procedural actions [ and ] the attitude on the part of the persons involved in the proceedings towards their obligations , and [ is related to ] other objective circumstances . The criminal proceedings under consideration were commenced on DATE [ and ] on DATE the criminal case was received for adjudication by the court . [ T]he adjudication of the case was restarted anew before CARDINAL compositions of the trial bench [ and ] CARDINAL court hearings were scheduled for the adjudication of the case . The reasons for postponement of the [ proceedings ] were not related to the non - performance of procedural obligations on the part of the accused [ including the applicant ] . In such circumstances [ and ] taking into account the volume of the case file and [ its ] legal complexity , with the accused charged in relation to CARDINAL incidents , [ the court ] finds that the right of the accused to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time has not been respected . ”

NORP In determining sentence ORG cited the wording of section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated that a court ’s finding of non - compliance with the reasonable - time guarantee could be taken into account in mitigating sentence . ORG further considerations read as follows :

“ The court deems it impossible to apply ... a fine , because neither the prosecution nor defence have submitted evidence on the financial situation of the accused that would enable the court to assess their ability to pay the fine immediately or their possibility to gain income [ in the future ] enabling them to pay the fine imposed within the time - frame foreseen by the law . In determining the sentence ... the court takes into consideration that ... a very long time has passed since the commission of the crime , the positive character references of the accused and the fact that [ the applicant ] cares for a child who is a Category CARDINAL disabled ... and that there are no mitigating circumstances ... with respect to [ the applicant ] there is CARDINAL aggravating circumstance ... ”

Accordingly , ORG found that it could determine the sentence within or close to the minimum penalty prescribed by law .

Applying section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG imposed a sentence of CARDINAL NORP compulsory work on the applicant . It credited to the applicant ’s sentence the time he had spent in pre - trial custody CARDINAL October and DATE . As a result , the court concluded that the applicant had already served his sentence in full .

On DATE ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

ORG noted that the sentence which had been imposed on the applicant complied with LAW and there were no grounds to consider that it was disproportionate .

On DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) refused to consider an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant .

That decision was final .

The applicant learnt of the decision of the ORG of ORG on DATE , when it was communicated to him .

The domestic law and practice has been cited in LOC v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . For the purposes of the present case it is appropriate to set out the wording of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) of the Criminal Law :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If a court finds that a person ’s right to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time has not been respected , it may :

CARDINAL ) take this circumstance into account in determining sentence and mitigate the sentence ;

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , an abuse of office that had caused grave consequences or had been committed with the intent to obtain a material benefit was punishable by a custodial sentence of DATE or a fine of CARDINAL minimum DATE salaries . On DATE amendments to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) entered into force . The punishment of compulsory work and the ancillary penalty of prohibition on exercising certain duties for a period of DATE to DATE were added .


CASE OF BALAKIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting into circulation counterfeit money . Since then he has remained remanded in custody pending criminal investigation and trial . The detention warrants were prolonged every month initially and DATE once the case had reached ORG . Each time the reasons given for the detention were that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of DATE , that the criminal case was complex and that , if released , he might interfere with the investigation or collude with other co - accused , or abscond or re - offend .

The last CARDINAL extensions of the applicant ’s detention before the lodging of the present application took place on unspecified dates in DATE and DATE . The applicant argued that there was no risk of his interfering with the investigation since all the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings had already been heard and all the evidence had been examined by the court . He also submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or re - offend and he agreed to be placed under house arrest if he could not be released . The applicant also argued that according to LAW , once the case had been referred to a court , the detention could not last longer than DATE , other than in exceptional cases .

NORP ORG dismissed the applicant ’s arguments and , relying on the same grounds as before , extended his detention for a further DATE . The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The decisions of DATE and DATE contain similar wording . The applicant ’s appeals against them were rejected by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The ORG has not been informed about the final outcome of the criminal proceedings .


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and before his arrest lived in GPE . In DATE he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis . It remains unknown whether the applicant received any treatment for this condition while at liberty .


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

The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE Mr PERSON caused a traffic accident and his car collided with the applicant ’s car . The applicant sustained bodily injuries of medium gravity as a result .

On DATE ORG of the GPE region absolved PERSON , who had admitted his guilt , under LAW .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG of the city of GPE awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) against PERSON in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident mentioned above . The bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings for the lack of property of PERSON which could be attached . The applicant did not challenge termination of the enforcement proceedings before the domestic courts . The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON for the latter ’s failure to pay the judgment debt . He also complained about the nonenforcement to the prosecutor and then challenged the alleged inaction of the prosecutor before the courts .

In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against ORG , seeking compensation for the damage caused by PERSON under Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .

By the judgment of DATE , the court rejected the applicant ’s claim on the ground that a special law laying down the conditions and mechanism for enforcing the provisions of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW had not yet been enacted . Furthermore , the court noted that the insolvency of PERSON had not been established .

On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .

The Civil Code , which came into force in DATE , lays down different obligations as to compensation in respect of damage . Among others , CARDINAL articles , namely Article CARDINAL , relied on by the applicant in the domestic proceedings , and LAW , provide for the ORG to compensate the victims of a crime if the offender is not identified or is insolvent . The articles in question provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person as the result of a crime shall be compensated for by the ORG if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent .

NORP The conditions and procedure governing compensation for pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person who was the victim of a crime shall be established by law . ”

“ CARDINAL . Damage caused by mutilation , other physical injury or death as the result of a crime shall be the subject of ORG compensation to the victim or to other persons defined in LAW if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent .

NORP The conditions and procedure governing State compensation for the damage caused by mutilation , other physical injury or death shall be established by law . ”


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , most recently , Mr I. Lishchyna .

On DATE PERSON , the applicant ’s nephew born in DATE was killed in the ORG air show accident ( for more details concerning the accident , ensuing investigation and ORG aid to the victims see PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against ORG seeking CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) in damages on account of her nephew ’s death . This claim was joined to the criminal proceedings instituted against military officers accused of negligent conduct resulting in the accident .

On DATE the applicant increased the amount of her initial claim to ORG CARDINAL . According to her , this figure represented the equivalent of the amount allocated by the Government of GPE per death of each NORP and NORP national under the recently ratified interstate friendly settlement agreements concerning the crash of a TU-CARDINAL M airliner on DATE . That airliner had exploded over LOC while en route from GPE , GPE , to GPE in GPE . The exact causes of that accident had not been established ; however , according to the leading version of the investigation , the airliner had been accidentally shot down by a NORP missile launched during military training manoeuvres .

During the trial , the applicant submitted that she had been PERSON primary caretaker since his infancy , as his parents had not taken care of him . Although she had had no formal guardianship over PERSON , they had a very close relationship . Losing him for her was the same as losing her own son .

On DATE ORG of Appeal found CARDINAL military officers guilty of negligent conduct resulting in the accident and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment .

On DATE it awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL by way of compensation for non - pecuniary damage in connection with her nephew ’s death . ORG ( PERSON father ) was awarded UAH CARDINAL under the same head .

The applicant appealed in cassation against this judgment , complaining that the compensation awarded for non - pecuniary damage was grossly inadequate . She also submitted that it was discriminatory to ascribe a value to her nephew ’s life that was lower than the lives of the NORP and NORP nationals who had died in the aforementioned TU-CARDINAL M airliner crash , for which the military authorities had borne a similar degree of responsibility .

On DATE the Military Panel of ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the trial court ’s judgment .

During DATE senior military officers ( the criminal proceedings in respect of whom had earlier been disjoined ) were tried and acquitted by courts at CARDINAL judicial instances . The applicant did not lodge any civil claims in these proceedings .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE of DATE reads as follows :

“ The human being , his or her life and health , honour and dignity , inviolability and security are recognised in GPE as the highest social value .

Human rights and freedoms and their guarantees determine the essence and orientation of the activity of the ORG . The ORG is answerable to the individual for its activity . To affirm and ensure human rights and freedoms is the main duty of the ORG . ”

The relevant provisions of the aforementioned agreement , ratified by PERSON of GPE on DATE , read as follows :

“ The Government ( Cabinet of Ministers ) of GPE ... and the Government of the State of GPE ...

Taking note that GPE has formally supported before GPE the claims of its citizens , victims of LAW ...

Taking note that GPE has not recognized any legal obligations or responsibility in connection with LAW ...

Have agreed on the following :

With a view to full and complete settlement and resolution of any and all disputes ... GPE shall pay ex gratia to GPE a lump sum of CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... for the benefit of NORP heirs , successors and dependents ... of the victims of LAW ...

... after the payment of the amount of settlement ... the State of GPE , its bodies , citizens , legal entities ... shall drop and forever relieve GPE ... from any and all claims ...

This Agreement does not constitute any acknowledgment on the part of GPE . This Agreement does not constitute a juridical precedent and shall be used only with a view to fulfil its provisions ... ”

This agreement , ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE on DATE , envisaged the transfer to ORG of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL on terms similar to those stipulated in the analogous agreement with the Government of GPE .


Inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Final domestic decision);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

On DATE the applicants were on an excursion to GPE . In TIME , they decided not to return home , but to spend TIME in their car , a ORG Punto , parked in a car park next to a pizzeria in GPE . Waking up , they noticed that a car was passing by theirs , coming back and forth several times . They found this frightening and drove on to the village of PERSON , where they stopped their car in the parking lot of a private house .

At the same time , TIME , an unknown person telephoned Mr S. , a volunteer law enforcer , to tell him about a ORG suspiciously moving around in the neighbourhood , near a local grocery store . Mr S. informed off - duty police officer PERSON , who was serving with ORG .

Subsequently , officer PERSON , driving his private car and taking a self - defence pistol , went to inspect the grocery store , together with Mr S. Not having found any trace of a criminal offence , they notified the duty officer of ORG about the sighting of the suspicious car . They were informed about the identity of the owner of the ORG , following which they continued to look for the vehicle in the surrounding area .

At TIME , they noticed the ORG Punto parked in front of a private house . Officer PERSON stopped his vehicle , a black PERSON , perpendicularly to the applicants’ car , QUANTITY away . Both officer PERSON and the volunteer law enforcer started to run towards the applicants’ car , approaching from the back . The police officer shouted : “ Police ! Get out ! ” and held up his police identification card .

PERSON , sitting at the steering wheel , only noticed QUANTITY people getting out of a dark civilian car and running towards them in civilian clothes . Finding this frightening , she attempted to drive away , forcing the garden gate of the adjacent property and driving into its yard . Inside the garden , the dimensions of which were QUANTITY , and noticing that there was no other way to exit , she turned the car around and drove back towards the gate .

When the car was on its way out , officer PERSON waved at the car shouting “ Police ! Stop ! ” and fired a warning shot . As it appears from the case file , at this time Mr S. was standing in front of the police officer ’s car , rather than in the prospective way of the applicants’ car . When the car passed officer PERSON , he shot twice more , at the car . The first shot was fired downwards from CARDINAL metres’ distance , hitting the mudguard of the car on the left side at the level of the lights . The other shot was fired from QUANTITY following a downward trajectory . It went through the rear window , which fell into the car , missed the head of PERSON by LAW and then went through the window of the right front door .

Ms Haász continued to drive , trying to leave the garden by passing around the police officer ’s car to the left . She finally hit the officer ’s car at its right side , at the passenger front door . At this moment PERSON was standing next to the police officer ’s car , at its left side , next to the open driver ’s door .

Officer PERSON again called on the applicants to get out of the car , which they did . He put his gun away , presenting his police ID . Since the CARDINAL men wore plain clothes and neither they nor their car had any police signs , the applicants realised that officer PERSON was a police officer and his associate a volunteer law enforcer only at this point in time .

Thereupon it became clear that the incident was based on a misunderstanding , since the applicants had only been frightened but had had no intention whatsoever of countering a police measure .

Subsequently the Veszprém District Investigating Prosecutor ’s Office ( Veszprémi Nyomozó Ügyészség ) initiated proceedings against officer PERSON on charges of attempted manslaughter ( the charge being later on re - characterised as intentional endangerment committed by a public official ) . The applicants were questioned several times as witnesses , and a confrontation took place . Other witnesses were also heard and the opinion of a forensic firearms expert was obtained .

Simultaneously , officer PERSON ’s superior , ORG , investigated the use of a firearm by officer PERSON found that the officer had had no intention of endangering human life – his purpose had been to halt the applicants’ car , which had represented a danger for him and his associate – but that the officer ’s action , although not criminal , had been unprofessional . According to the superior ’s internal report , following a first warning shot , a second , intentional shot had been directed at the car , while the third one had been accidental , endangering the life of PERSON . The supervisor initiated disciplinary proceedings , which were suspended pending the criminal proceedings .

The applicants also lodged a complaint formally challenging the lawfulness of the police measures with ORG . These proceedings were suspended on DATE pending the outcome of the criminal investigation .

On DATE the Veszprém District Investigating Prosecutor ’s Office discontinued the investigation . It found that officer PERSON ’s use of firearms was lawful in the face of the danger represented by the conduct of the applicants , namely driving , at a speed of QUANTITY , in the direction of his associate .

ORG accepted officer PERSON ’s statements , according to which he had given a warning before shooting and had first shot on perceiving a danger to the life of his associate . It also accepted the police officer ’s account of the events , namely that at the material time he could believe that his associate was standing between his car and the car of the applicants , which was approaching rather fast . Nonetheless , relying on the evidence furnished by a ballistic expert , ORG dismissed officer ORG statement that the second shot following the warning had been accidental .

The decision also relied on the report of the Chief of ORG stating that officer PERSON ’s conduct had been unprofessional as regards the second shot fired at the applicants’ car .

The applicants’ lawyer filed a complaint against the discontinuation .

On DATE the Veszprém County Public Prosecutor ’s Office ( Veszprém Megyei Főügyészség ) dismissed the complaint , holding that the danger caused by the applicants had directly concerned the life and limb of officer PERSON ’s associate . Relying on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW on the Police , the Prosecutor ’s Office found that the risk that the associate might be hit by their car had justified the shots by officer PERSON even if they had not been preceded by the requisite procedure , in particular a warning about the use of firearms , since any delay caused by the warning could have compromised the success of the measure . According to the decision , the applicants’ behaviour had constituted a direct threat to the life and limb of both PERSON and officer PERSON

The applicants were informed that the complaint had been dismissed under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) point b ) of LAW and that they had the possibility of filing a motion for prosecution , acting as substitute private prosecutors , under sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW .

The decision was served on the applicants on DATE .

On DATE the Veszprém County Public Prosecutor ’s Office rejected the ORG renewed complaint . ORG informed the applicants that the prosecution authorities would not deal with any further complaint unless it disclosed relevant new facts .

In a letter of DATE the Attorney ORG informed the applicants that there was no legal ground to quash the decisions on the discontinuation of the investigation in respect of officer PERSON

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG dismissed , in its resumed proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG complaint about the actions of officer PERSON concluded that although the latter ’s conduct had been unprofessional because of the way he had halted the applicants’ car and the use of a self - defence pistol rather than a service pistol , it had not been unlawful . The ORG appeal was dismissed by the ORG Chief Police Department on DATE .

Since the incident , the applicants have been suffering from psychological troubles .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed at a ORG - owned company from CARDINAL DATE until the termination of her employment on DATE . A certain part of her severance payment was taxed at PERCENT rate in the amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .


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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant is a limited liability company registered under NORP law , with its seat in GPE .

On DATE the applicant initiated a civil lawsuit against CARDINAL companies requesting the court to declare invalid a real estate sale and purchase agreement concluded between these CARDINAL companies .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE . On appeal , ORG quashed the judgment on DATE .

The first - instance court re - heard the case and dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE . On appeal , the second - instance court upheld the judgment on DATE . The applicant challenged the judgment before ORG which quashed it on DATE .

In the resumed proceedings ORG quashed , on DATE , the first - instance court ’s judgment .

On DATE ORG as firstinstance court dismissed the applicant ’s claim . On appeal , ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . The applicant challenged the judgment before ORG but to no avail . ORG upheld the final and binding judgment on CARDINAL DATE ( served on DATE ) .


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev

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

In DATE ORG placed the applicant on the wanted list in connection with their criminal investigation into a violent burglary in GPE and the infliction of grave bodily injuries on B. ’s daughter PERSON , who was a minor .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of having committed an unrelated crime in that country , for which he was subsequently convicted by a NORP court to a term of imprisonment that was due to end on DATE .

On DATE a NORP court ordered the applicant ’s retention in custody pending his extradition to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE and placed in a pre - trial detention facility .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was presented with an arrest report stating that he had been arrested on suspicion of having committed aggravated burglary . He was informed of his right to have access to a lawyer as from the first interrogation . The applicant signed this report , stating that he generally disagreed with its content and that he wished to have a lawyer as from the first interrogation .

At the same time on DATE the applicant also signed a record confirming that he had been informed about his rights as a suspect , in particular the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer . The applicant signed the report and added by hand in the relevant field provided on the pre - printed form that he had “ refused the assistance of a defence counsel and would defend himself , not for financial reasons ” ( свои права буду защищать самостоятельно , не по материальным причинам ) . The applicant alleged that he had been compelled to sign this and subsequent waivers because the police had told him that they would not provide him with a lawyer , as he had initially requested .

On DATE the applicant signed another record confirming that he had been informed about his rights as a suspect and stating ‒ using the same wording ‒ that he would defend himself .

On DATE he was questioned twice . He denied any involvement in the alleged offence .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged with aggravated burglary . On DATE he signed a record confirming that he had been informed about his rights as an accused person and stated ‒ using the same wording ‒ that he would defend himself .

On DATE he signed another such record using the same wording . On DATE the investigator announced to the applicant that the pre - trial investigation was complete and gave him the criminal case file to study .

On DATE ORG signed the final bill of indictment , charging the applicant with aggravated burglary . The indictment contained a request that the victims , PERSON and PERSON , and CARDINAL other witnesses be called at the trial .

On DATE the applicant stood trial before ORG sitting in a single judge formation , assisted by a clerk . According to the trial record , the trial unfolded as follows :

According to the applicant , this record of the trial was inaccurate . In particular , the applicant did not initially plead guilty . It was only after PERSON had departed that the judge persuaded him to plead guilty and to agree to abbreviated proceedings in exchange for a lenient sentence .

At the close of the trial on DATE , the court delivered its judgment . It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment , to be counted from DATE , the date of his arrest in GPE , with DATE and DATE therefore remaining to be served . The court relied on his guilty plea in the course of the trial and his consent to dispensing with the examination of evidence . It also stated that the applicant ’s guilt was proven by a number of documents in the file . In particular it referred to the identification reports , according to which P. and another eyewitness had identified the applicant as the person who had attacked P.

On DATE B. appealed , maintaining that the sentence was too lenient . She argued that the term of imprisonment should be calculated from the date of the applicant ’s arrest in GPE rather than from the date of his arrest in GPE for an unrelated crime . She also maintained that the prosecutor had not been present at the trial and that the applicant had never repented or admitted his guilt and had behaved defiantly at the trial .

The applicant replied to the appeal , submitting that his guilty plea and remorse for the crime had been genuine and that the sentence imposed by the trial court had been correct and justified .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) held a hearing in the presence of a prosecutor , PERSON and the applicant . At the hearing the applicant reaffirmed his initial submissions , said that he regretted the offence he had committed , and requested that the trial court ’s verdict be left in force . According to the applicant , he had requested the presence of a lawyer at this hearing but his request had not been granted .

On DATE ORG quashed the sentence of ORG as unduly lenient , taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the applicant ’s personality . It also found that the trial court had misinterpreted the law regulating the calculation of sentences with regard to the time served in prison in GPE . In particular , it had failed to take into account the fact that GPE had made a reservation to the LAW to the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil , Family and Criminal Matters DATE concerning the effect given to sentences rendered in other GPE Parties to the LAW . Accordingly , ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment to be calculated from DATE , the date of his arrest in GPE .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that he was in fact innocent . He alleged that at the trial he had initially denied his guilt and pointed out what he believed to be gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution ’s case . However , he had then pleaded guilty because of pressure from the trial judge and because he had wished to be released sooner and had no funds to pay for a lawyer . No prosecutor had been present at his trial and in these circumstances he had not been convinced of the judge ’s impartiality or that there had been a fair examination of evidence . When the judge had assured him that he would receive a lenient sentence if he pleaded guilty , he had followed the judge ’s instructions . The applicant also alleged that ORG had erred in failing to take into account the time he had served in prison in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and found that , taking due account of the adequacy of the written evidence collected by the prosecution , the applicant ’s conviction had a sufficient factual and evidentiary basis . It furthermore found that ORG had been correct in its calculation of the applicant ’s prison term from DATE , but reduced the sentence to DATE .

On DATE , at the request of the ORG office , ORG ordered that the term of the applicant ’s imprisonment be calculated from DATE ( the date of the decision to remand him in custody pending consideration of the extradition request ) .

On DATE the applicant was released .


CASE OF BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

All the applicants were convicted by NORP courts and given custodial sentences .

They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in PERSON ordered V.T. ( “ the debtor ” ) to pay to the applicant CARDINAL ( “ EUR ” ) plus statutory interest on account of debt and MONEY ( “ ORG ” ) , which was approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time of the delivery of the judgment , for the costs of the civil proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( Okružni sud ) in ORG , on appeal , reduced the award in respect of costs to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and upheld the first - instance judgment for the remainder .

The judgment of DATE , as amended on DATE , became final on DATE .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , ORG ordered the enforcement of the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor ’s movable assets .

Following CARDINAL failed attempts at seizure of the debtor ’s movable assets , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement by seizure and sale of the judgment debtor ’s property was impossible due to the debtor ’s indigence .

On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings . This decision was quashed on appeal on DATE by ORG .

Following a further attempt at seizure of the debtor ’s movable assets , on DATE ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings ( prekida se postupak izvršenja ) because of the debtor ’s death in the meantime .

On DATE the applicant proposed that the enforcement proceedings be continued by seizure and sale of the deceased debtor ’s movable and immovable estate . In support of his request , the applicant submitted a court decision of DATE by which the debtor and CARDINAL other persons had previously inherited a house with a plot of land . He also requested the court to appoint a temporary representative for the debtor ’s heirs in accordance with LAW . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request . This decision was quashed on appeal on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to provide the names and the addresses of proposed debtors , indicate the debtor ’s heirs , propose the means of enforcement and details and proof of ownership concerning immovable assets , all within DATE , failing which his request would be rejected . It was further specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision . In the reasoning , the court found that the names and the addresses of the debtor ’s potential heirs were available from the decision of DATE , and that therefore , there was no need for the appointment of a temporary representative . On DATE , however , ORG instructed the applicant to advance the costs for a temporary representative within DATE . It was also specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for continuation of the enforcement proceedings because of his failure to abide by the orders of DATE and DATE . This decision was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE .

According to the Government , there are CARDINAL heirs of the deceased debtor , the names and addresses of which have been known .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was placed in retirement on grounds of disability and received a disability pension as of DATE , the amount of which was MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) per month . The entitlement was based on a final decision of ORG . At the material time the medical board rated her state of health at MONEY .

The methodology for disability assessment changed as of DATE .

Act no . ORG of DATE on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity was enacted on DATE and entered into force as of CARDINAL DATE . It introduced a new system of allowances and beneficiaries of the old scheme were invited to re - apply under the new rules .

The applicant lodged a fresh application for disability allowance under the new law .

Pending approval of her new application , she continued to receive a DATE disability allowance in the amount of ORG MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) on the strength of the fact that on DATE the new law entered into force , she had been in receipt of a disability benefit .

On DATE the National Rehabilitation and ORG assessed the applicant ’s state of health at MONEY . She was categorised as a person suitable for rehabilitation on the basis of that assessment . However , owing to the applicant ’s other circumstances , her rehabilitation was not recommended .

In application of the relevant rules , the applicant ’s rehabilitation allowance was established at MONEY of the minimum wage , that is , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , by a decision of ORG ) given on DATE and effective as of DATE .

NORP The applicant appealed .

A medical assessment carried out in the course of the second - instance administrative proceedings resulted in the finding that the applicant ’s state of health was at MONEY . It was reaffirmed that her rehabilitation was not recommended . Since the minor difference in the scores did not alter the calculation of the allowance , ORG upheld the first - instance decision on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant sought a judicial review .

On DATE ORG dismissed her action . Having obtained fresh medical assessments and the opinion of the national forensic body , the court was satisfied that the applicant ’s state of health was at MONEY ( her locomotor , digestive and endocrinological conditions were calculated cumulatively as per the method prescribed in FAC no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( II . CARDINAL . ) PERSON ) .

Again , the minor difference in the scores had no bearing on the calculation of the allowance . The court upheld the administrative decisions .

On DATE the GPE dismissed the applicant ’s petition for review . It observed in particular that the lower courts had found that the applicant ’s state of health ( for the purposes of the application of rules of disability benefits ) had improved and that the applicant had challenged that finding . It pointed out that such an improvement did not necessarily correspond to actual healing from a condition , but could also result from a change in , or stricter application of , the relevant rules of medical assessment .

The applicant submitted that , as of DATE , she no longer received any benefits . The legal or factual circumstances underlying this state of affairs are not known .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);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);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG . According to the arrest report , signed by CARDINAL police officers , during his arrest the applicant attempted to swallow some pieces of papers and resisted the police officers who tried to take the papers out of his mouth .

On DATE , the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . The doctor noted , on a police document , that the applicant had a widespread bruised area under his left eye , oedema under his right eye , a scratch on his left wrist , red patches behind his left ear and bleeding on his right ear .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with pharyngitis and prescribed him medication .

On DATE the applicant was questioned at the anti - terror branch of the ORG security directorate and confessed to his involvement in ORG .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was sent for a medical examination at ORG . In a document of the police directorate in which the applicant ’s name was put , the doctor who examined the applicant noted that he had a widespread bruised area under his left eye and small scratches on his left wrist .

On DATE , the applicant was questioned by both a public prosecutor and an investigating judge . Before the public prosecutor , the applicant responded to the questions by nodding . The public prosecutor noted that the applicant was unable to speak and therefore could not make statements . Before the investigating judge , the applicant wrote down on a piece of paper that his throat and internal organs hurt and that he was unable to speak . He further noted that he would examine his police statements and the evidence against him in detail and make his defence submissions before the trial court .

On DATE the investigating judge authorised the applicant ’s detention at the anti - terror branch of the ORG security directorate for a further period of DATE on the basis of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL in force at the material time .

DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined at ORG . The doctor who conducted the examination stated in a police document that the applicant had a bruise , measuring QUANTITY , under the left orbital region and was suffering from tonsillitis .

On DATE the applicant was referred to the emergency room of the state hospital in GPE , where the doctors considered that he should be examined by a doctor at the otolaryngology department of the hospital . The applicant was subsequently subjected to a number of auditory examinations and at TIME on DATE an otolaryngologist stated , in a letter sent to the hospital by the police , that the applicant suffered from otitis in his right ear and tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear which could have occurred as a result of trauma . The doctor further noted that the applicant suffered from hearing loss .

On DATE the applicant made further statements to the police . According to the document containing his police statement , he had already made statements concerning his relations with the illegal organisation and he did not wish to make any further submissions as to the content of the documents that he had attempted to swallow during his arrest .

On DATE the applicant was once again examined by a doctor at ORG . The doctor stated in a letter sent to the hospital by the ORG security directorate concerning the applicant that the latter looked weak but did not bear any signs of physical violence on his body .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG prison , where he was detained on remand .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was subjected to medical examinations at ORG and received treatment for breathing and indigestion problems while detained in the ORG prison .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , accusing the applicant of membership of the ORG under LAW .

The proceedings commenced before ORG . On an unspecified date , the case against the applicant was joined with another case which was pending before ORG and which had been brought against a number of other persons who were charged with membership of the ORG .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force under LAW of the former LAW and sentenced him to life imprisonment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court on procedural grounds .

In the meantime , by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . Therefore , ORG acquired jurisdiction over the case .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for membership of the ORG and for his involvement in activities attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing during which the applicant ’s lawyer was present and made defence submissions . On DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court in so far as it concerned the applicant ’s criminal conviction .

On DATE ORG pronounced its decision .

Following the deposit of the decision of ORG with the registry of the first - instance court , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a committal order concerning the execution of the sentence ( müddetname ) . On DATE the committal order was served on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL petitions with the public prosecutor ’s office at ORG and stated that he had been subjected to illtreatment before and during his detention in police custody . In this connection , he alleged that he had been beaten before he was taken to the hospital on DATE of his arrest and that the injuries that he had sustained on his face were the result of those beatings . He further maintained that he had been stripped naked , blindfolded , insulted , threatened , strangled , subjected to electroshocks and suspended by his arms , hosed with pressurised cold water and had his testicles squeezed . The applicant further submitted that the police officers had put pressure on the injuries he had sustained under his eyes with a view to making him suffer . The applicant noted in his petition that he had suffered from tympanic membrane perforation as a result of his ill - treatment . He finally submitted that he had not made a statement before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge on DATE as he had been unable to speak due to the ill - treatment that he had suffered at the hands of the police .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG transferred the applicant ’s petition to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office , noting that he did not have jurisdiction to investigate the applicant ’s allegations .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor at ORG and the anti - terror branch of the ORG security directorate requesting them to submit to him the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant and his police statements .

On DATE the public prosecutor also requested the ORG prison authorities to bring the applicant to his office for his statement to be taken .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant regarding his complaint . The applicant contended that he had been tortured during the first phase of his detention in police custody , that is to say , DATE and DATE . He noted that he had been stripped naked , blindfolded , insulted , subjected to electroshocks and hosed with pressurised cold water on his testicles and his ears , which had resulted in the injury to his ears . He also reiterated his allegation that the officers had put pressure on the injuries that he had sustained to his face at the time of his arrest . He finally complained that DATE he had been subjected to psychological pressure by the police .

On DATE the applicant was examined at the ORG branch of ORG upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor . According to the report issued as a result of this examination , there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant ’s body . The medical expert however noted that as regards the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment , he could draft a further report after obtaining the reports issued during and after the applicant ’s detention in police custody .

On DATE the applicant was subjected to a medical examination at the ORG state hospital as a result of which a report was issued . According to that report , the tympanic membrane of the applicant ’s left ear was intact .

On DATE the ORG branch of ORG issued a report in respect of the applicant upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor for an opinion as to whether the applicant could have sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as a result of ill - treatment . The report noted that there was a contradiction between the report of DATE , which stated that the tympanic membrane of the applicant ’s left ear was intact , and that of DATE , according to which the applicant suffered from tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear . The medical expert who prepared the report opined that in order to issue a final report , the applicant should be subjected to a medical examination and an enquiry should be conducted .

DATE and DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent letters to the authorities of several prisons asking the latter to send the applicant for a medical examination . On each occasion , the prison directors informed the public prosecutor that the applicant had been transferred to another prison .

On DATE the applicant was subjected to a medical examination of his ears at ORG upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor . The report issued in respect of the applicant did not make any reference to a perforation in the applicant ’s left ear .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor once again requested the ORG branch of ORG to prepare a report containing an opinion as to whether the applicant could have sustained his injuries as a result of ill - treatment .

On DATE a doctor from the ORG branch of ORG sent a letter to the ORG public prosecutor informing him that a final opinion could be provided only following a detailed otolaryngological examination of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Van state hospital upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor . The medical expert who examined the applicant noted that the tympanic membrane of the applicant ’s left ear was intact .

On DATE and DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested ORG to submit to him a copy of the applicant ’s police statements , the arrest and search reports and the medical reports issued in his respect which were in the file of the case brought against him . On DATE the president of ORG sent a letter to the public prosecutor informing him that the case file was at ORG as the appeal proceedings were pending . On DATE and DATE and DATE the public prosecutor reiterated his requests as he had not received the documents asked for . On DATE the president of the first - instance court , which , in the meantime , had became ORG , reiterated his previous reply . On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG public prosecutor received a copy of the case file .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG public prosecutor and asked for information on the outcome of the investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment . Stating that he had not been informed of the progress of the investigation during DATE , he submitted that the investigation and his medical examinations focused only on the injury to his left ear , whereas he suffered from other injuries and illnesses as a result of his illtreatment in police custody . The applicant requested that he undergo a thorough examination at ORG . He received no response to his petition .

DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested the antiterror branch of the ORG security directorate to send him the documents pertaining to the applicant ’s police custody and information as to the place of duty of the suspected police officers . On DATE the antiterror branch of the ORG security directorate sent the documents and information requested .

On DATE the applicant maintained before ORG that he had lodged a petition complaining about ill - treatment that he had endured in police custody and asked to be informed of the outcome of the investigation initiated into his allegations .

On DATE the applicant was once again subjected to an auditory examination at ORG . The doctor who prepared the medical report noted that the applicant suffered from slight hearing loss .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant once again requested to be informed of the outcome of the investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment before ORG . He received no response .

On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the prison administration to be sent to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office . He received no reply . On DATE the applicant was informed that his petition had been received and no response had been given . It should be noted that the content of the applicant ’s petition is not available in the case file .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor asked the ORG branch of ORG to provide a report on whether the applicant could have sustained the injuries observed on his body as a result of the use of force by the police .

By letters dated DATE and DATE the public prosecutor further asked the ORG branch of ORG to provide a medical opinion as to whether the applicant could have sustained his injuries as a result of proportionate use of force and as to whether there had been a difference between the medical reports issued at the beginning and the end of the applicant ’s detention in police custody . On DATE an expert from the ORG branch of ORG informed the public prosecutor that the documents in the case file should be sent to DATE Section of Expertise of ORG in GPE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested ORG to assign a medical expert to prepare a report containing an opinion on the veracity of the applicant ’s allegations on the basis of the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant .

On DATE a medical expert from ORG sent a report to the public prosecutor ’s office . According to the doctor , it was possible that the tympanic membrane perforation in the applicant ’s left ear had recovered over time . He also considered that the perforation could have occurred as a result of trauma during the applicant ’s arrest or when he had been in police custody .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the ORG public prosecutor ’s office and requested to be informed of the outcome of the investigation . By a letter dated DATE the ORG public prosecutor informed the applicant that the investigation file had been sent to CARDINAL Section of Expertise of ORG and the investigation was pending .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested that the applicant be examined by DATE Section of Expertise of ORG . DATE and DATE the public prosecutor sent letters to the ORG prison , where the applicant had been transferred , and asked the prison authorities to send the applicant to GPE for a medical examination at ORG .

On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . During his examination , the applicant stated that he had been beaten at the time of his arrest . He also maintained that he had been illtreated while in police custody .

On DATE the CARDINALnd Section of Expertise of ORG issued a report . In this report , reference was made to the arrest protocol , dated DATE , which stated that the police officers had had to use force to apprehend the applicant , since he had resisted arrest . ORG also took into consideration the aforementioned medical reports dated DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On the basis of these reports and the medical examination of the applicant carried out on DATE , DATE Section of Expertise of ORG established that the injuries observed on the applicant ’s body had not been life - threatening , but would have prevented him from continuing his DATE activities for DATE . It was further indicated that the injuries on the applicant ’s face and ear could have been caused by a blow with a blunt object during the applicant ’s arrest . The report further stated the applicant had not been subjected to an examination of his ear DATE and DATE and that the red patches behind the applicant ’s left ear noted in the report of DATE could have been caused by physical trauma which could have also led to the tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear . The CARDINALnd Section of Expertise finally noted that there was no medical evidence demonstrating that the applicant had been subjected to physical trauma during his detention in police custody .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided to close the investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . In his decision , he relied on the report of DATE Section of Expertise of ORG and held that the injuries observed on the applicant ’s body had been sustained during the scuffle at the time of his arrest . The public prosecutor noted that the injuries observed on the applicant ’s person had been caused by the force used to arrest the applicant , which had been in compliance with the PERSON on the Duties and Powers of the Police ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and that there was no report or other evidence showing that the police officers had exceeded the limits of their powers on the use of force . The public prosecutor further considered that there was no evidence , such as medical reports or witness statements , demonstrating that the applicant had been ill - treated while detained in police custody . He also stated that the length of the applicant ’s detention in police custody had been in accordance with the legislation at the material time . The public prosecutor thus concluded that there was no evidence to support the applicant ’s allegation that he had been subjected to ill - treatment while in police custody .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with ORG against the decision of DATE . In his petition , the applicant submitted that his medical examination by DATE Section of Expertise of ORG had been conducted too late . He also contended that his medical examinations had been superficial . For instance , no examination had been carried out in relation to his allegation of being subjected to electroshocks . The applicant finally submitted that he had had to be taken to the emergency service while in police custody due to his problems with his ear .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s objection , holding that there was no evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG alleging a violation of , inter alia , LAW . The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill - treatment during his arrest and while in detention in police custody .

On DATE the ORG , sitting as a ORG of CARDINAL judges , declared the applicant ’s complaint under LAW inadmissible for non - exhaustion of domestic remedies .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .