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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant had a press card issued to him as a photographer , stating that he was a “ correspondent at ORG . GPE ” . According to the applicant ’s submissions , he also prepared various texts for publication in print and Internet media outlets on an occasional basis .

NORP In DATE the applicant and PERSON travelled to GPE to prepare a report with photographs on , as he described it , “ the life of this unrecognised republic ” .

On DATE they returned to GPE , arriving on foot at the PERSON customs checkpoint . The applicant presented his NORP passport , press card and a customs declaration , stating that he had electronic information devices ( a laptop and flash memory cards ) in his luggage . The laptop was his own property , however , he also used it for professional purposes .

The applicant and NORP were examined by Officer PERSON In his report to his superior , drawn up at TIME on DATE , he stated that in view of the applicant ’s answers to questions and because of his behaviour , neither of which have been specified to the ORG , there was a need to verify the information contained in the applicant ’s customs declaration by way of an “ inspection procedure ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in respect of the items in his bag and backpack and to “ apply the measure for minimising risk as per profile no . CARDINAL ... ” .

The Government have submitted to ORG a written statement from PERSON , which reads as follows :

“ Following the customs control measure of an interview and given [ D. ’s and the applicant ’s ] behaviour and the nature of their professional activities , a supposition / assumption ( предположение ) arose that they might have banned printed and/or audio- and video - material with extremist content in their bags ... Since [ the applicant ] noted in his declaration that he had electronic storage devices , I made a written report to the acting chief officer of the customs checkpoint concerning the need for carrying out an inspection of [ the applicant ’s ] bags in the framework of the risk management system and for involving Officer PERSON , an IT specialist . The inspection was approved by the chief officer by way of his handwritten approval on my report ... The chief officer issued an order for an inspection and authorised PERSON and myself to use the sampling procedure ... The above - mentioned supposition / assumption was based on the presence of a folder labelled “ Extremist ” in the laptop ... Data from it was copied on DATE [ on the spot ] ... to DVD RW disks , which were then sealed in a plastic bag ... [ The applicant ] , PERSON and CARDINAL attesting witnesses were present ... The sampling report contained a detailed description of the data that was copied , including the names of the folders that had been copied , their number and the number of files in each folder ... The copying was carried out by Officer PERSON I did not open or copy any electronic folders or files ... I did not read any ‘ correspondence’ ( personal correspondence or other text material ) ... An order to carry out a forensic examination was issued on DATE ... because on CARDINAL DATE we had no information about the relevant expert organisations for that type of forensic examination ... ”

The Government have also submitted a written statement from Officer B. , which reads as follows :

“ In accordance with the order for an inspection [ no . ... ] , which required sampling and which also indicated ‘ other’ , I copied data from [ the applicant ’s ] laptop to CARDINAL DVD RW disks ... because we had no other type of disks or electronic storage devices ... Since the laptop ’s hard drive was CARDINAL ORG and at the time we had no means for fast copying , I decided only to copy folders with strange names . I did not read any ‘ correspondence’ ( personal correspondence or other text material ) from the laptop . ”

According to the Government , after finding in the directory of the laptop an electronic folder entitled “ Extremism ( for ORG ) ” , which contained a number of photographs , the customs officer decided to copy it and some other folders from the laptop for further examination by an expert , who could determine whether they contained any information of an extremist nature .

The folder contained CARDINAL subfolders and CARDINAL files . The applicant made a note in the record , stating that the material had been copied onto rewritable DVD disks ( thus technically allowing the data to be modified , including by way of adding data ) . According to the applicant , the folder had some photographs and a PDF copy of an article entitled “ How to incite hatred ? ” on anti - extremism legislation . The article , written by PERSON , was published in the NORP Reporter magazine in DATE and was accompanied by photographs taken by the applicant . The author of the article discussed the controversies and difficulties relating to the interpretation and application of NORP anti - extremism legislation , with reference to CARDINAL criminal cases under LAW . According to the applicant , the material that was copied included documents and text concerning CARDINAL ethnic groups ( the PERSON and ORG ) , who were allegedly under pressure from the PERSON regional administration . For instance , a folder named “ Isolation ” contained texts describing the social problems facing CARDINAL ORG families ( with references to their personal details ) , who had been discriminated against by the regional administration .

It can be seen from the record of the sampling that CARDINAL folders ( containing some CARDINAL subfolders with over CARDINAL electronic files ) were copied . The folders had the following names ( mostly in NORP ) : In motion , Miscellaneous , Desktop , Foto_projects , On the road , Isolation , Drawings , CARDINAL May , CARDINAL May , DATE , PERSON , Extremism ( for ORG ) .

It appears that the data from the laptop was first copied to a mobile or external hard drive and then recopied to CARDINAL DVDs . According to the Government , the information was then deleted from the external hard drive . The original data in the laptop was not deleted and remained intact .

According to the applicant , his laptop remained with Officer PERSON for TIME . Allegedly , the officer read through the applicant ’s correspondence in the ORG messaging program and copied QUANTITY of data , including the applicant ’s personal correspondence , personal photographs and FTP - type passwords .

The applicant submitted the following written statement by PERSON to the ORG :

“ At TIME we presented ourselves at the border control and presented our passports ... We were then taken to the customs control area ... There the customs officers asked [ the applicant ] to hand over his press card ; so they were aware that he had one ... Officer PERSON interviewed us about the purpose of our visit to GPE and our professional and civic activities ... I heard an ORG border officer tell the customs officers about the need for a ‘ special check’ of our electronic storage devices ... Seeing a laptop in [ the applicant ’s ] bag , the customs officers expressed their intention to copy all the available information ... I was interviewed ( again ) about my civic activities , my political views and about [ the applicant ’s ] professional activities ... the type of work done and the publications ... ”

On DATE the applicant was informed that a report had been commissioned from a criminal forensics expert to determine whether the data copied from his laptop had any prohibited “ extremist ” content .

In DATE the expert organisation returned the DVDs to the customs office , stating that it was not possible to carry out the examination , although it gave no reasons . In DATE a report was sought from another expert organisation . Apparently , it concluded that the data contained no extremist material . According to the applicant , the DVDs with his data were handed over to him in DATE .

In the meantime , the applicant brought judicial review proceedings under LAW of LAW ( “ ORG ” ) , challenging the adverse acts and actions of the customs officials .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed his claims . The court held as follows :

“ Laptops , storage devices , photo- and video - cameras should be considered as ‘ ORG within the meaning of LAW . All goods should be presented for checking by customs , as required under LAW ... The customs authorities are authorised to take samples of goods for examination ... and to use technical devices to speed up the checks ... The data from the applicant ’s laptop was copied for the purposes of examination in compliance with Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL on combating fascism and political extremism ... In the circumstances , the fact that the samples taken for examination constituted all the relevant data was justified ... ”

The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the first - instance court ’s assessment had not taken into account the requirements relating to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , in particular , the requirement that any interference by a public authority had to be shown to be “ necessary in a NORP society ” and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued . He mentioned the ORG ’s case - law relating to the seizure of printed material and electronic devices , an action which adversely affects the maintenance of professional secrecy . The applicant also argued as follows :

( a ) Compliance with Decree no . CARDINAL was not possible without actually reading someone ’s correspondence and other personal information , thereby interfering with the constitutional right to the protection of the secrecy of correspondence and other communications . LAW only permitted restrictions on people ’s rights on the basis of a federal statute ; the decree in question was secondary legislation ( подзаконный акт ) and could not lawfully introduce additional limitations on constitutional rights ;

( b ) The trial court had mentioned that laptops , flash memory cards and the like were “ goods ” for the purposes of customs legislation . However , the sampling had been carried out in respect of the information they contained rather than the carriers or containers of the information ( “ the goods ” ) . Access to that information , however , was only allowed on the basis of a court order , as stated in LAW ;

( c ) In his “ written explanations ” to the appeal court , the applicant insisted that in LAW proceedings a public authority had the burden of proving that its acts were lawful and justified . However , the first - instance court had not required the customs authority to cite a specific legal provision authorising its officials to examine electronic data . According to the applicant , the customs authority representative had refused at the hearing to explain the specific content of the risk profile concerning the applicant , referring to the fact that the information in question was classified and was for internal use only . However , a DATE Instruction by ORG only authorised a customs inspection where the risk profile in question provided for that type of measure ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , essentially reproducing the lower court ’s reasoning as follows :

“ Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Customs Code , customs authorities fulfill the tasks and functions assigned to them by federal and other legislation ... and have the authority to apply measures prescribed by LAW for ensuring compliance with customs legislation ...

LAW defines goods ( for the purposes of customs legislation ) as movable property which is being transferred across the customs border . This includes laptops , memory flash cards , photo - cameras , video - cameras , printed material and the like . LAW provides that all such goods should be subject to customs clearance and customs control . LAW provides that goods should be declared when being transferred across the customs border . LAW provides that the declaration is made by way of presenting a written declaration or otherwise ... The transfer of goods by individuals for personal use is prescribed by LAW of LAW , and Government decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . LAW provides that goods which are prohibited from being transferred to GPE must be removed from GPE .

By a letter of DATE ORG listed the goods which are banned from NORP territory ... By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG listed the goods that must be declared to customs .

The procedure for and the types of customs checks are described in Chapters CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code . Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that customs checks are based on the principle of selectiveness and , as a rule , should be limited to such forms of control as are sufficient for ensuring compliance with customs legislation ... When selecting the form of control , the risk management approach is applied , which is based on the effective use of resources for preventing violations of the legislation ... Risk is defined as a probability of non - compliance with customs legislation .

When carrying out a customs check , the customs authority is allowed to take samples of goods which are needed for further assessment . The relevant procedure is defined in LAW order no . DATE . When carrying out a customs check , the authority is allowed to use technical means to limit the time of such checks ; the list and procedures for their use are defined in LAW and in ORG order no . CARDINAL of DATE ...

Order no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG ( ‘ On preventing the transfer of prohibited printed , audio- and video - material across the customs border’ ) does not contradict the current customs legislation and has not been revoked because the current ORG Code contains LAW concerning bans and limitations on the transfer of goods across the customs border ...

In view of the above , the court agrees with the first - instance court that the customs inspection was authorised and carried out within customs control procedures and that the data was copied in line with NORP Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ... LAW decree clearly requires the customs authority to ‘ arrest and bring to liability persons who disseminate printed , cinematographic , audio- , photo- or video - materials which are aimed at being propaganda in favour of fascism , at inciting social , racial , ethnic or religious enmity ; and to take measures for seizing printed material of that PERSON ...

Article CARDINAL of the Code concerning the minimal amount of samples was complied with because the information taken for sampling was not homogenous . Thus when the samples were taken , it was necessary to take the full amount of information from the device ...

In addition , it is noted that under LAW , information received by customs officials may be used exclusively for the purposes of customs legislation ...

ORG officials are not authorised to disclose that information or transfer it to third persons , except as set down in the LAW or other legislation ... ”

NORP The applicant does not appear to have been prosecuted subsequently in criminal , administrative or other proceedings in connection with the data obtained from his laptop by the customs authorities .


Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the ORG of LOC found the applicant guilty of torture and manslaughter and sentenced him to CARDINAL half GPE imprisonment .

As is evident from medical documents provided by the applicant , prior to his arrest in DATE he completely lost the vision in his left eye , while the vision in his right eye was substantially impaired . In DATE he was registered as Category CARDINAL disabled on account of his poor eyesight .

In DATE , during his detention in correctional facility IK-CARDINAL in GPE , the applicant was severely beaten up by warders , and sustained a serious spinal injury leading to partial paralysis of his lower extremities . He started using crutches . According to him , subsequent ill - treatment , inadequate conditions of detention and a lack of proper medical assistance caused his health to deteriorate drastically : he developed an intervertebral hernia and intravascular tumor which , in turn , resulted in the lower part of his body being completely paralysed . He became wheelchair - bound . He supported his allegations with medical certificates issued in penal medical facilities .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant served his sentence in correctional facility IK-CARDINAL in GPE . In DATE he was transferred to correctional facility IK-CARDINAL in GPE , where he was detained until his release on DATE .

Having made no complaints about the conditions of his detention in facility IK-CARDINAL , the applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in facility IK-CARDINAL supporting his arguments with handwritten statements by a former inmate , NORP On his arrival to the facility the applicant was assigned to ORG , which was not equipped to house wheelchair - bound inmates . A large number of CARDINAL - tier beds were installed in the dormitory . The unit was dimly lit as the beds blocked the windows . CARDINAL inmates occupied the dormitory .

The lavatory in the dormitory was not adapted for disabled people , as the lavatory pans were not at floor level and did not have rails . The applicant always asked for assistance from CARDINAL other inmates , as he was unable to use the lavatory on his own . Not every inmate was willing to help , which made a sensitive situation even more frustrating and embarrassing for him , since he suffered from enuresis and encopresis ( bladder and bowel incontinence ) . Relying on D. ’s statement , the applicant argued that he had received assistance from inmates in the facility in exchange for cigarettes and money . Without payment , inmates had refused to help him . The applicant stressed that in addition to their unwillingness to help him , the inmates also had to perform their own DATE duties in the unit . They therefore had had no free time to help him to move around the facility . The facility administration had not taken any steps to rectify the situation . The applicant cited , as an example , behavior by CARDINAL inmates , Ya . and PERSON , appointed by the administration of the facility to assist him . The applicant insisted that they had created “ acute ” situations to force him to pay more for their services . When he could not pay , he had been left without any assistance , unable to go to the lavatory and forced to defecate in his underpants . The applicant also submitted that in DATE , once the ORG had communicated his application to ORG , he had only been provided with a special chair to use in a lavatory room .

The applicant then proceeded to describing the procedure for using the bathhouse . He had been able to use a communal bathhouse once DATE when an inmate had agreed to take him there in his wheelchair . Passages throughout the correctional facility grounds had been separated by barriers QUANTITY high . The applicant had required assistance from CARDINAL inmates to carry him over . In DATE and DATE he had been unable to find anyone willing to take him to the bathing facility . On the occasions he had been able to find inmates willing to help him and had paid for their services , he had been taken to the bathhouse , undressed , and carried by his hands into the cabin where he had been placed on a chair . He had showered leaning on a wall that he would not fall over . The bathing facility had not had any equipment to accommodate a disabled person such as the applicant . The shower heads had been installed too high and he had again needed to ask a detainee to help him to take a shower . Once again help had not been given willingly , as inmates had only been afforded TIME to take a shower themselves and had not wanted to spend that time helping him .

Citing the handwritten statement by inmate NORP , the applicant stressed that inmates who had wanted to use the shower cabins in the dormitories had to pay . The shower cabin had been locked and only the supervising inmates had had access to the key .

The applicant was not allowed to use the electric water heaters , which he needed to keep clean , in view of his suffering from bladder and bowel incontinence . He could not go to eat in the facility canteen , so was forced to eat in the dormitory , with food having been brought to him by inmates from the canteen . In DATE he did not eat for DATE as the food was served in dirty tableware .

NORP In DATE the applicant did not receive his DATE quota of CARDINAL meals a day . A cook was assigned the task of taking food to the applicant from the facility canteen . However , given that the cook was often too busy with his usual tasks , and the fact that the food was scarce , he frequently did not receive anything . NORP In DATE the applicant started receiving food in a plastic mayonnaise bowl , which was never washed or cleaned . He experienced food poisoning and stomach pain and his face , legs and arms became swollen . His requests for food to be served in suitable tableware were disregarded .

On DATE the applicant was registered as Category CARDINAL disabled , having been diagnosed with paraplegia .

According to the applicant , in DATE he was sent to a prison hospital to determine whether he was fit to continue serving his sentence . On his return to facility IK-CARDINAL DATE the applicant was again assigned to ORG . He provided an identical description of the conditions of his detention , save for minor details . In particular , he argued that CARDINAL inmates shared the dormitory , which measured QUANTITY . FAC inmates suffered from HIV , various stages of tuberculosis or had various disabilities . He could not take exercise in the open air , as he could not get into his wheelchair without assistance and could not leave the dormitory as the passageway was too narrow . Lavatory pans were installed on a pedestal QUANTITY above the floor and were separated from each other with partitions . He always received cold food in plastic bowls , and there was no way of heating food in the dormitory . His wheelchair was taken from him in the dormitory for security reasons .

The applicant and his representatives lodged a large number of complaints with various authorities . On DATE a deputy prosecutor of the LOC prosecutor ’s office sent a letter to the applicant , informing him that the regulations concerning conditions of detention in prison facilities did not cover the provision of access ramps . However , on the prosecutor ’s request ramps had been installed at the entrance to the dormitory building where the applicant was being held . The deputy prosecutor further stated that the applicant received food in the dormitory , being served by an inmate on duty who took it to him from the facility canteen . He was not asked to pay for that service and the food was served in the proper tableware and was adequate .

The applicant received similar letters from various officials in DATE and DATE .

On DATE a request to institute criminal proceedings was sent to ORG in GPE . That request was forwarded to the local investigation unit and the prosecutor ’s office . No response followed .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention . CARDINAL facility officials escorted him to GPE where , according to him , he did not have family or a home . The applicant was admitted to a hospital in GPE , where he has remained ever since , despite his efforts to find a place to stay a charity hostel .

Relying on certificates issued by the governor of correctional facility IK-CARDINAL , photos of the applicant ’s dormitory in that facility and handwritten statements by inmates from facilities IK-CARDINAL and ORG , the Government provided a lengthy description of the conditions of the applicant ’s detention . In particular , while describing the conditions of the applicant ’s detention before his transfer to facility IK-CARDINAL , they argued that the applicant had been able to use his legs and had therefore not needed assistance to move around , although he had allegedly attempted to conceal that fact from the authorities .

The Government continued with the description of the detention conditions in facility IK-CARDINAL .

On his arrival at facility IK-CARDINAL on DATE the applicant had been assigned to ORG where he had stayed for DATE . A certificate issued by the governor of correctional facility IK-CARDINAL showed that the entrance to the dormitory building of Unit CARDINAL had been equipped with a wheelchair ramp when the applicant had stayed there . Following the applicant ’s transfer from the unit , that ramp had been dismantled .

The Government stated that inmates had had CARDINAL sq . m of personal space . As is evident from a handwritten statement by the head of Unit CARDINAL , the applicant ’s dormitory had CARDINAL sleeping places . The Government also provided the ORG with dormitory plans . According to the plan , Unit CARDINAL was on the second floor , with CARDINAL stairs leading to it from the first floor . A long corridor of QUANTITY . m led to the sleeping room of CARDINAL sq . m where there were QUANTITY , CARDINAL chairs and CARDINAL bedside tables . A lavatory of QUANTITY . m , a shower room of QUANTITY . m and a dormitory kitchen of CARDINAL sq . m were accessible from the corridor .

A photo submitted by the Government showed the applicant ’s metal bed in a corner near a window . In a certificate the facility governor provided an explanation about the photo , indicating that QUANTITY of free space separated the applicant ’s bed from the neighbouring bunk .

On DATE the applicant had been transferred to Unit CARDINAL where he remained until his release . Unit CARDINAL had been on the first floor of the facility dormitory block . The dormitory had been easily accessible to the applicant . Doorways had been sufficiently wide for him to enter and move around . The Government produced handwritten statements by inmates PERSON and PERSON . who confirmed that the applicant had been able to enter the dormitory building without any difficulties , as the entrance door step was CARDINAL cm high . In a certificate submitted to the ORG the facility governor stated that it had not been necessary to install the ramp at the entrance of the dormitory building of LAW , as the entrance door step had been CARDINAL cm high .

The Government again reiterated that CARDINAL sq . m of personal space had been afforded to inmates . The dormitory of ORG had CARDINAL sleeping places and was divided into CARDINAL sleeping rooms . The applicant ’s room measured QUANTITY . m and contained CARDINAL bunks , QUANTITY bedside tables and CARDINAL chairs . A large square corridor of QUANTITY . m separated the sleeping rooms from the remaining part of the dormitory . CARDINAL doors from the corridor led to a lavatory of QUANTITY . m , a shower room of QUANTITY . m , a locker room , a dormitory kitchen of CARDINAL sq . m , a store room , and an office for the unit head .

The Government also submitted CARDINAL photos of the dormitory , which showed rows of CARDINAL - tier bunks separated by a narrow passageway . The applicant ’s single - tier bed was installed by a wall in the corner near the window . According to explanations given by the facility governor , the space between the applicant ’s bed and the neighbouring bunks was QUANTITY wide .

The Government further described the bathing facilities . Photos of the bathhouse showed a narrow tile - covered long room with CARDINAL high partitions dividing the room into a number of small cubicles with a shower head installed in each of them , but no handrails or other similar equipment . The bathhouse was equipped with CARDINAL shower heads installed QUANTITY above the floor . A shower handle was placed QUANTITY above the floor . Each inmate had QUANTITY to use the bathhouse . In view of the fact that the applicant had been registered as Category QUANTITY disabled , he had been given TIME to take a shower . Relying on a handwritten statement by inmate PERSON . , the Government observed that that inmate had helped the applicant to use the bathhouse .

The dormitories of Units nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were equipped with shower cabins with electric water heaters . Photos provided by the Government showed clean shower rooms which were tiled floor to ceiling . A curtain separated the shower from the remaining part of the room . The shower heads were installed CARDINAL above the floor . No handrails were installed in the rooms . The applicant had been allowed to use the cabins without any restrictions . The Government relied on statements by CARDINAL inmates . As is evident from a handwritten statement by inmate PERSON , the applicant had needed assistance of other inmates , including when using the shower cabins . Inmate PERSON . also wrote that he and inmate PERSON had helped him to use them .

The lavatory of Unit CARDINAL was equipped with CARDINAL squatting pans installed on pedestals QUANTITY above the floor . Partitions separated the pans from each other creating cubicles QUANTITY wide . The lavatory of Unit CARDINAL had CARDINAL squatting pans . The remaining description of the facilities was similar to that of Unit CARDINAL . The Government stressed that after his arrival at facility IK-CARDINAL the applicant had been given a special chair to use in the lavatory . They provided photos of the CARDINAL lavatories and of the special chair the applicant had used . The photos showed several cubicles with plastic walls and full - size doors . The cubicles with lavatory pans were separated from the remaining part of the room by a high step . Rows of sinks with taps and mirrors above them were installed along a wall . The equipment was installed at a height suitable for use by able - bodied inmates . A photo of the lavatory in Unit CARDINAL also showed a tile - covered basin with a tap above it . Given the height of the tap , the basin had been accessible to the applicant . CARDINAL of the photos showed a special chair that had been made from an ordinary wooden chair , from which the base had been removed and replaced with a toilet seat .

As is evident from a certificate issued by the governor of facility IK-CARDINAL , the applicant had always eaten in the kitchens of the dormitory buildings during the entire period of his detention . The Government stated that he had been given hot food CARDINAL times a day . The facility medical personnel had checked the quality of the food DATE and had kept a record of it in the log . Food had been taken to him from the canteen by inmates . According to a statement given by the facility ’s chief cook , he had supervised the process of taking food to the applicant from the canteen . The food had always been served in clean dishes and had been hot . It had been taken to the applicant by inmates PERSON . and PERSON Those CARDINAL inmates confirmed that the food had been served in thermos flasks which had been clean , and that the applicant had never made any complaints about quality or quantity of the food . Nor had he ever refused it .

The Government stressed that the applicant had been assisted by inmates , among them GPE . , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON Those inmates had helped the applicant “ willingly and free of charge ” in moving around the correctional facility grounds , using the lavatory and bathhouse , and visiting the facility shop , medical unit and library . They had regularly taken food to the applicant and had fulfilled his other requests . The Government cited statements by several inmates in support of those submissions . As is evident from the ORG handwritten statements , the applicant had not needed assistance to move around the dormitory , as the space had been wide enough for his wheelchair . At the same time CARDINAL inmates had always accompanied him if he needed to move around the facility grounds .

As to other aspects of detention , the applicant had also remained under permanent medical supervision , having been provided with medical care of requisite quality , subjected to necessary diagnostic and clinical procedures and consulted by specialists in respect of his illness , although he had not always complied with medical advice . The ORG also stated that the applicant had had “ a tendency to exaggerate his condition ” .

According to the applicant , on DATE his representatives from an NGO , ORG , lodged an application with ORG of GPE , seeking his release on health grounds . The representatives enclosed with their application a long list of illnesses from which the applicant suffered , including paraplegia , atrophy of the left eye , astigmatism in the right eye , a renal cyst , epilepsy , acute viral hepatitis C , and osteochondrosis of the lumbosacral section of the spine , complicated by the formation of a hernia and tumour . Following receipt of the complaint , ORG authorised a forensic medical examination of the applicant to determine whether he was fit to continue serving his sentence . At DATE he was transferred to a prison hospital for that purpose . Despite remaining there for DATE , he was sent back to the correctional facility without any examination having been carried out . He further alleged that the facility officials had misplaced his documents and the court had had no choice but to discontinue the proceedings .

The Government disputed the applicant ’s submission , having explained that a request for the applicant to be released on health grounds had been lodged at DATE by a representative of an NGO , ORG . That request had been redirected to the governor of facility IK-CARDINAL to comply with the statutory requirements . On a number of occasions DATE facility officials had asked the applicant to sign his application for early release or to sign a power of attorney authorising a representative of the ORG to act on his behalf in court proceedings . The applicant had refused to undergo the medical examination required under NORP law to support the release application and to sign it . Given the applicant ’s refusal to comply with those requirements , the court had adjourned examination of the matter and had instructed the facility officials to provide documents showing that the applicant ’s state of health had called for his release . When asked again by the officials to undergo a medical examination in a prison hospital , the applicant had refused . He had notified the authorities that he had already stayed in the hospital on a number of occasions , having undergone inpatient treatment there . In DATE the facility governor had asked the applicant to lodge another release application . The applicant had allegedly told him that his representative had lodged a complaint with the ORG and that he would be generously compensated for DATE he had been detained in the correctional facility .


CASE OF PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev

The applicants DATE a married couple – were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC .

After trying to have a child and having unsuccessfully resorted to medically assisted reproduction techniques , the applicants put themselves forward as adoptive parents .

On DATE the applicants obtained official authorisation from ORG to adopt a foreign child within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , entitled “ The Child ’s Right to a Family ” ( hereafter , “ LAW ” ) , subject to the condition that the child ’s age was to be compatible with the limits foreseen by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants state that they waited in vain for a child who was eligible for adoption .

They subsequently decided to try resorting to assisted reproduction techniques again and to a surrogate mother in GPE . To that end , they contacted a GPE - based clinic . The first applicant stated that she travelled to GPE , transporting from GPE TIME seminal fluid , duly conserved , which she handed in at the clinic .

A surrogate mother was found and the applicants entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement with the company PERSON . After a successful in vitro fertilisation on DATE , CARDINAL embryos were implanted in the surrogate mother ’s womb on DATE .

On DATE the NORP clinic certified that the second applicant ’s seminal fluid had been used for the embryos to be implanted in the surrogate mother ’s womb .

The first applicant travelled to GPE on DATE , the clinic having indicated that the child was due to be born at DATE .

The child was born in GPE on DATE . On DATE the surrogate mother gave her written consent to the child being registered as the applicants’ son . Her written declaration , bearing the same date and read aloud at the hospital in the presence of her doctor , the chief physician and the head of the hospital department , is worded as follows ( LANGUAGE translation of the original LANGUAGE version ) :

“ I , the undersigned ... have given birth to a boy in the ... maternity hospital in GPE . The child ’s parents are an NORP married couple , PERSON , born on ... and PERSON , born on ... , who expressed in writing their wish to have their embryos implanted in my womb .

On the basis of the foregoing and in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW , I hereby give my consent for the above couple to be entered in the birth record and the birth certificate as parents of the child to whom I have given birth ... ”

In DATE following the child ’s birth , the first applicant moved with him into a flat in GPE , rented by her in advance . The second applicant , who had remained in GPE , was able to communicate with her regularly via internet .

On DATE the applicants were registered as the new - born baby ’s parents by ORG in GPE . The NORP birth certificate , which indicated that the applicants were the child ’s parents , was certified in accordance with the provisions of LAW DATE Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents .

On DATE the first applicant went to FAC in GPE , with the birth certificate , in order to obtain the documents that would enable her to return to GPE with the child . ORG issued the documents enabling the child to leave for GPE with the first applicant .

On DATE the first applicant and the child arrived in GPE .

In a note of CARDINAL DATE which was not filed in the proceedings before ORG the NORP FAC in GPE informed ORG , ORG and ORG that the paperwork in respect of the child ’s birth contained false information .

DATE applicant contacted the Colletorto municipality , requesting that the birth certificate be registered .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicants , who were suspected of “ misrepresentation of civil status ” within the meaning of LAW , of “ use of falsified documents ” within the meaning of LAW and of the offence set out in LAW of LAW , since they had brought the child to GPE in breach of the procedure provided for by the provisions on international adoption contained therein ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In parallel , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG at ORG requested the opening of proceedings to make the child available for adoption , since he was to be considered as being in a state of abandonment for the purposes of the law . On DATE ORG appointed a guardian ad litem ( curatore speciale ) and opened proceedings to make the child available for adoption .

On DATE ORG placed the child under guardianship at the request of ORG . The child ’s guardian asked the court to suspend the ORG parental responsibility , in application of section CARDINAL of LAW .

The applicants challenged the measures in respect of the child .

Following a request of ORG on DATE , the applicants were visited by a team of social workers on CARDINAL DATE . Their report , dated CARDINAL DATE , indicated that the applicants were viewed positively and respected by their fellow citizens , and that they had a comfortable income and lived in a nice house . According to the report , the child was in excellent health and his well - being was self - evident , since he was being cared for by the applicants to the highest standards .

On DATE the first applicant , assisted by her lawyer , was questioned by the Larino carabinieri . She stated that she had travelled to GPE alone in DATE , transporting her husband ’s seminal fluid . She stated that she entered into a contract with the company PERSON , which had undertaken to find a surrogate mother willing to be implanted with genetic material from the first applicant and her husband through ORG in GPE . The applicant explained that this practice was perfectly legal in GPE and had made it possible for her to obtain a birth certificate which identified the applicants as parents . In DATE or DATE the first applicant had been contacted by the NORP company , which informed her that a surrogate mother had been found , and she had given her consent to the medical procedure .

On DATE the applicants were heard by ORG . The first applicant stated that , after CARDINAL unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilisation , which had endangered her health , she had resorted to the NORP clinic , since it was possible in that country to use ova from a donor , which were subsequently implanted in the surrogate mother .

On DATE the court ordered that DNA testing be carried out in order to establish whether the second applicant was the child ’s biological father .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to refuse to enter the particulars of the birth certificate in the civilstatus register .

On DATE the second applicant and the child underwent DNA testing . The result of these tests showed that there was no genetic link between them .

Following the outcome of these tests , the applicants sought an explanation from the NORP clinic . DATE , in a letter of DATE , the clinic ’s management informed them that it had been surprised by the results of the DNA test . It stated that there had been an internal inquiry , since an error had clearly occurred , but it had proved impossible to identify the individual responsible for the error , given that there had been dismissals and recruitment of other staff in the meantime .

On DATE ORG of the GPE refused to register the NORP birth certificate . The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against this refusal . The subsequent proceedings are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .

ORG asked ORG to give the child a new identity and to issue a new birth certificate .

As part of the proceedings to make the child available for adoption which were then pending before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants asked a psychologist , PERSON , to prepare a report on the child ’s well - being . The report drawn up by Dr NORP on DATE , after CARDINAL meetings with the child , indicates that the applicants – who were attentive to the child ’s needs – had developed a deep emotional bond with him . The report indicated that the grandparents and other family members also surrounded the child with affection , and that he was healthy , lively and responsive . PERSON concluded that the applicants were suitable parents for the child , both from a psychological perspective and in terms of their ability to educate him and bring him up . She added that possible removal measures would have devastating consequences for the child , explaining that he would go through a depressive phase on account of a sense of abandonment and the loss of the key persons in his life . In her opinion , this could lead to somatic symptoms and compromise the child ’s psycho - physical development , and , in the long term , symptoms of psychotic pathology could emerge .

The applicants asked for the child to be placed with them , with a view to adopting him if necessary .

By an immediately enforceable decision of DATE , ORG ordered that the child be removed from the applicants , taken into the care of the social services and placed in a children ’s home ( casa famiglia ) .

The relevant passages of ORG decision read as follows :

In their evidence Mr PERSON and PERSON stated that PERSON had travelled to GPE carrying her husband ’s semen in a special container , and had there entered into an agreement with the company PERSON . Under this agreement , PERSON had delivered her husband ’s semen to a pre - determined clinic . CARDINAL or more eggs from an unknown female donor had been fertilised in vitro with this semen , and then implanted into another woman , whose identity is known and who had subsequently given birth to the child in question on DATE . In exchange , Mr PERSON and PERSON had paid a large amount of money . PERSON stated that the woman who had given birth to the child had waived her rights to him and had consented to him being referred to on the birth certificate , drawn up in GPE , as the son of Mr PERSON and PERSON ( a copy of the informed consent , given on DATE by the woman who gave birth to the child , is on file in these proceedings ) .

A court - appointed expert witness was then instructed to establish whether the minor child was the biological son of PERSON . In her report the court - appointed expert witness , PERSON [ NORP ] , concluded that the results obtained by means of typing of the DNA of FAC and the DNA of the minor child [ T.C. ] rule out FAC as the child ’s biological father .

In DATE ’s hearing Mr PERSON and PERSON referred to their previous evidence and PERSON repeated that she had taken her husband ’s semen to GPE to be used for the purpose of the intended fertilisation .

However , the conclusions of the court - appointed expert witness have not been challenged .

At the close of the hearing , ORG requested that the application by Mr PERSON and PERSON be refused , that the minor child be placed in the care of third parties and that a temporary guardian be appointed for him . The child ’s guardian ad litem asked that the child be placed in care under LAW and that a guardian be appointed . Mr PERSON and PERSON requested primarily that the court award them temporary care of the child with a view to subsequent adoption ; in the alternative , they requested the suspension of these proceedings pending the criminal classification of the offences , and the suspension of the above - mentioned criminal proceedings against them and of the proceedings before ORG to challenge the refusal to register the child ’s birth certificate ; again in the alternative , they requested the suspension of these proceedings under LAW no . CARDINAL for the purpose of a possible repatriation of the minor child to GPE , or , failing that , for the child to be placed with them under LAW of the cited law .

That being the case , the court finds that the statements by Mr PERSON and ORG regarding the delivery to GPE of PERSON genetic material are not supported by any evidence . On the other hand , it has been established that the minor [ T.C. ] is neither the biological son of PERSON , nor , given the evidence of the expert report , of PERSON . At the present time the only certainty is the identity of the woman who gave birth to the baby . The biological parents of the baby , that is , the man and the woman who provided the gametes , remain unknown .

In the light of this evidence , the present case can not be viewed as a case of so - called gestational surrogacy , which is the case where the surrogate mother who gives birth to the baby has no genetic link to him or her , the fertilisation having taken place with the PERSON ) of a third woman . Indeed , in order to be able to talk of gestational or traditional surrogacy ( in the latter , the surrogate mother makes her own ovules available ) there must be a biological link between the child and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL intended parents ( in this specific case , Mr PERSON and PERSON ) , a biological link which , as has been seen , is non - existent . ”

In the court ’s view , the applicants had thus placed themselves in an unlawful situation :

“ It follows that by bringing a baby to GPE , passing him off as their own son , in blatant infringement of the provisions of our legislation ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) governing inter - country adoption of children , Mr PERSON and PERSON have acted unlawfully . Besides any criminal offences which may have been committed ( infringement of section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which are not within the jurisdiction of this court , it is noted that the agreement entered into between Mrs Paradiso and the company PERSON had unlawful elements since , given the terms of the agreement ( the delivery of Mr PERSON ’s genetic material for the fertilisation of another woman ’s ovules ) , it was in breach of the ban on the use of assisted reproductive technology ( A.R.T. ) of a heterologous type laid down by section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE .

In any event , it is pointed out that despite being in possession of the authorisation for inter - country adoption issued by order of this court on DATE , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , as has been stated , intentionally evaded the provisions of Law no . DATE , which provide not only that the intended adoptive parents must apply to an authorised body ( section CARDINAL ) but also for the involvement of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) , the only body competent to authorise entry and permanent residence of a foreign child in GPE ( section CARDINAL ) . ”

The court therefore found it necessary , first and foremost , to put an end to this unlawful situation :

“ It is therefore necessary , above all , to prevent this unlawful situation from continuing , since to maintain it would be equivalent to ratifying unlawful conduct in open violation of the provisions of our legislation .

Accordingly , it is necessary to remove the minor child from Mr PERSON and ORG and place him in an appropriate structure with a view to identifying a suitable couple to foster the child as soon as possible . ORG of GPE is therefore instructed to identify an appropriate structure and to place the child in it . The NORP legislation on adoption applies to this child in accordance with section PERSON of Law No . CARDINAL , there being no doubt that he is in GPE in a state of abandonment , having been deprived of his biological parents and other relatives , and the mother who gave birth to him having renounced him .

Admittedly , it can not be denied that the child will in all likelihood suffer harm from being separated from Mr PERSON and PERSON . However , given the age of the child and the short time he has spent with them , the court can not agree with the conclusions of the report by psychologist [ Dr I. ] ( instructed by Mr PERSON and PERSON ) , finding that it is certain that the child ’s separation from them would entail devastating consequences . Indeed , according to the literature on this subject , the mere separation from the main care - givers is not a causal agent of a psychopathological state in a child unless other causal factors are present . The trauma caused by the separation from Mr PERSON and PERSON will not be irreparable , given that a search will begin immediately for a couple able to attenuate the consequences of the trauma , through a compensatory process that will encourage a new adaptation .

It is also pointed out that the fact that Mr PERSON and PERSON ( and in particular PERSON ) have put up with the hardships and the difficulties of GPE ( PERSON has also stated that during one of these interventions her life was at risk ) and have preferred , despite being in possession of an approval for inter - country adoption , to circumvent NORP legislation on this subject gives rise to the doubt and the fear that the minor child may be an instrument to fulfil a narcissistic desire of Mr PERSON and PERSON or to exorcise an individual or joint problem . In the light of the conduct of Mr PERSON and PERSON during the events under examination , all of this throws a consistent shadow over their possession of genuine affective and educational abilities and of the instinct of human solidarity which must be present in any person wishing to bring the children of others into their lives as their own children .

The separation of the minor child from Mr PERSON and PERSON thus corresponds to the best interests of the child . ”

According to the applicants , the court ’s decision was enforced on DATE , without their having been informed of the decision in advance .

The applicants lodged an appeal ( reclamo ) before ORG . They argued , inter alia , that the NORP courts could not contest the NORP birth certificate . They further requested that no measures be taken concerning the child while the criminal proceedings against them and the proceedings challenging the refusal to enter the birth certificate in the NORP civil - status register were pending .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal .

ORG found that the child T.C. was “ in a state of abandonment ” ( in stato di abbandono ) within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , as the applicants were not his parents . In those circumstances , the question of whether or not the applicants were criminally liable and whether or not there had been an error in the use of seminal fluid of unknown origin was not , in its view , relevant . In ORG opinion , it was not appropriate to await the outcome of the criminal trial or of the proceedings brought by the applicants to challenge the refusal to enter the particulars of the birth certificate in the register . ORG also considered that section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ( the Private International Law Act ) did not prevent the NORP courts from refusing to comply with certified information from a foreign ORG , and that there was no issue of lack of jurisdiction , since , according to section CARDINAL of LAW , “ ... the NORP law governing adoption , fostering , and necessary measures in case of urgency shall be applicable to a foreign minor child who is in [ GPE ] in a state of abandonment ” ( cf . also ORG ) ” .

No appeal to ORG lay against that decision ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

In the meantime , on DATE the public prosecutor at ORG had ordered the preventive seizure of the NORP birth certificate , on the ground that it was an essential item of evidence . In the prosecutor ’s view , in all probability the applicants had not only committed the offences with which they were charged , but they had attempted to conceal them . They had , according to him , inter alia , stated that they were the biological parents and had then corrected their versions of events as these were successively disproved .

The applicants challenged the preventive seizure order .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on the ground of the strong suspicions that they had committed the offences in question . In particular , the court noted the following facts : the first applicant had spread a rumour that she was pregnant ; she had gone to FAC in GPE and implied that she was the natural mother ; she had subsequently admitted that the child had been born to a surrogate mother ; she had stated to the carabinieri on CARDINAL DATE that the second applicant was the biological father , which had been disproved by the DNA tests ; she had thus made false statements ; she had been very vague as to the identity of the genetic mother ; the documents concerning the surrogate motherhood stated that the CARDINAL applicants had been seen by the NORP doctors , which did not correspond to the fact that the second applicant had not travelled to GPE ; the documents relating to the birth did not give any precise date . The court considered that the only certainty was that the child had been born and that he had been handed over to the first applicant against payment of MONEY ( ORG ) . In the court ’s view , the hypothesis that the applicants had behaved illegally with a view to having the particulars of the birth certificate entered in the civilstatus register and to circumventing the NORP legislation thus appeared well - founded .

In DATE ORG transmitted the decision regarding the preventive seizure to ORG and indicated that a conviction under section CARDINAL of LAW would deprive the applicants of the possibility of fostering ( affido ) the child and of adopting him or other minors . In the Public Prosecutor ’s view , there was therefore no other solution but to proceed with the adoption procedure for the child , and his temporary placement with a foster family had therefore been requested , in accordance with sections CARDINAL of LAW . ORG repeated his request and emphasised that the child had been removed DATE previously , and that he had since been living in a children ’s home ( casa famiglia ) , where he had developed meaningful relationships with the persons responsible for his care . He explained that the child had thus still not found a family environment to replace the one that had been illegally provided by the couple who had brought him to GPE . According to ORG , the child seemed destined for another separation , even more painful than that from the mother who had given birth to him and then from the woman who claimed to be his mother .

An appeal having been lodged to contest ORG refusal to enter the particulars of the NORP birth certificate in the civilstatus register , ORG declined jurisdiction on DATE . The proceedings were subsequently resumed before ORG . The applicants insisted that the particulars of the NORP birth certificate be entered in the NORP register .

By an immediately enforceable decision of DATE , ORG ruled on the transcription of the birth certificate into the NORP register .

By way of introduction , ORG dismissed the objection raised by the guardian to the effect that the applicants did not have standing to bring an action before that court ; it acknowledged that the applicants had standing to bring proceedings in that they were referred to as the “ parents ” in the birth certificate that they wished to have entered in the civil - status register .

However , ORG considered it clear that the applicants were not the biological parents and concluded that there had not therefore been a gestational surrogacy . It noted that the parties were in agreement that the NORP legislation presupposed a biological link between the child and CARDINAL of the intended parents before the term surrogate motherhood could be used . It concluded that the birth certificate was fraudulent ( ideologicamente falso ) and in breach of NORP law . In ORG view , given that there was nothing to show that the child had NORP citizenship , the ORG argument that NORP law was inapplicable ran counter to section CARDINAL of LAW , which stated that the legal parent - child relationship was determined by the national law governing the child at the time of his or her birth .

ORG added that it was contrary to public order to register the contested birth certificate , since it was fraudulent . It stated that although the applicants had pleaded their good faith , alleging that they were unable to explain why the second applicant ’s seminal fluid had not been used in the NORP clinic , this made no difference to the situation and did not alter the fact that the second applicant was not the biological father .

In conclusion , ORG held that it was legitimate to refuse to register the NORP birth certificate and to grant ORG request that a new birth certificate be issued . ORG therefore ordered that a new birth certificate be issued , indicating that the child was the son of persons unknown , born in GPE on DATE , and that he would be given a new name , determined in accordance with Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL .

Following execution of the decision issued by ORG on DATE , the child was placed in a children ’s home for DATE , in a location that was unknown to the applicants . All contact between the applicants and the child was prohibited . They were unable to obtain any news of him .

In DATE the child was placed in a family with a view to his adoption .

At DATE the guardian asked ORG to give the child a formal identity , so that he could be registered for school without complications . He stated that the child had been placed in a family on DATE , but that he did not have an identity . This “ inexistence ” had a significant impact on administrative matters , particularly with regard to deciding under what name the child was to be registered for school , for vaccination records , and for residence . While accepting that this situation corresponded to the aim of preventing the applicants from discovering the child ’s whereabouts , for his own protection , the guardian explained that a temporary formal identity would enable the secrecy surrounding the child ’s real identity to be maintained , while simultaneously enabling him to have access to public services ; for the time being , he was entitled only to use emergency medical services .

The case file indicates that this request was granted by ORG and that the child received a formal identity .

The Government have indicated that the child has now been adopted .

The proceedings to make the child available for adoption were resumed before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants confirmed their opposition to the child ’s placement with third persons . The guardian asked for a statement ruling that the applicants no longer had locus standi .

ORG asked ORG not to declare the child available for adoption using the name originally given to him , on the ground that , in the meantime , he had opened a second set of proceedings requesting that the child be declared available for adoption under his new identity ( child of unknown parents ) .

On DATE , ORG held that the applicants no longer had standing to act in the adoption proceedings , given that they were neither the child ’s parents nor members of his family within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW . The court stated that it would settle the question of the child ’s adoption in the context of the other set of adoption proceedings , referred to by ORG .

No information has been provided by the parties concerning subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants . It seems that those proceedings are still pending .


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .

NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Ms Estera Nicolescu , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before the Court by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their coAgent , Ms I. Cambrea and then by their Agent , Ms C. Brumar , of ORG .

NORP In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicants against CARDINAL journalists who had published several articles about them . At that time , they were respectively the director and a teacher in a local high school .

NORP The decision became available on DATE .

On DATE the applicants sent a letter to the ORG stating that “ the NORP State breached some of [ their ] rights guaranteed by the Convention ” and asking for an application form in order to “ legally lodge their application with the ORG ” ( ca modalitate legală de sesizare a ORG ) .

On DATE the ORG forwarded the application form and instructed the applicants on how to read the admissibility requirements set out in Articles DATE CARDINAL of LAW and CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the applicants sent their application form and supportive documents , raising comprehensive complaints under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant started enforcement proceedings against a company before the court of GPE ( domestic proceedings no . ORG ) in order to obtain the payment of CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the debtor ( executada ) opposed the proceedings through the introduction of a motion on that regard ( dedução de embargos ) . The motion was granted and remained valid until DATE . In the course of the proceedings , procedural steps were taken in the context of the opposition , which had to be suspended twice while waiting for a final decision in other CARDINAL different proceedings .

On DATE the court ordered the seizure ( penhora ) of the debtor ’s assets , which took place on DATE . The applicant opposed it on DATE . The court ordered the lift of the seizure ( levantamento da penhora ) on DATE .

On DATE the court ordered the suspension of proceedings because of the inactivity of the parties . The proceedings were suspended until DATE .

DATE and DATE several procedural steps took place , mostly notifications , provision of information from the parties and court orders ( despachos ) . On DATE the court ordered the sale of the business establishment that had previously been seized . Several attempts to sell it were made until DATE .

On DATE due to the inactivity of the parties the court ordered the proceedings to be suspended once again .

According to the last information received by ORG on DATE , the proceedings are still pending .