CASE OF EUROMAK METAL DOO v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos

NORP The applicant company was set up in DATE as a limited liability company . Its founders and sole shareholders were PERSON and Mr PERSON . It traded in scrap metal and for that purpose it purchased waste aluminium , copper , iron and other metals , processed them and then offered the product for sale .

The applicant was registered for the purposes of LAW ( the “ LAW ” ) and declared GPE on all invoices issued . ORG was also declared on all incoming invoices . This made it possible for the applicant company periodically to request GPE deductions from the ORG , which it did ( in accordance with the rules of the “ tax credit ” system ) .

Until the subsequent events , the applicant company had been submitting regular tax returns to the tax authorities , notifying the ORG of its LOC calculations , payments and deductions . The ORG had processed the tax returns without indicating any wrongdoing or additional amounts due on the part of the applicant company .

On DATE ORG , regional directorate – PERSON ( Управа за јавни приходи , LOC – “ the ORG ” ) issued an order to audit the applicant company for the purposes of GPE . The audit took place over DATE during DATE and DATE and took into account the period DATE and DATE .

On DATE a tax assessment was compiled by the ORG . It was established that the applicant company ’s suppliers were registered for the purposes of ORG but some of them had not declared or paid GPE to the ORG , even though it had clearly been declared in the invoices sent to the applicant company . That finding was based on earlier audits of those companies , which remained without further specification . The audit further established that some of the invoices did not contain the addresses of the suppliers . Lastly , the audit found that all invoices from the suppliers had been paid in full by the applicant company and that ORG had been declared on all invoices from the applicant company . On account of the above issues related to the applicant company ’s suppliers , the audit concluded that the applicant company had failed to meet the conditions necessary to benefit from the LOC deductions it had received .

Relying on the tax assessment conducted DATE , on DATE the ORG issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of erroneous calculation of GPE , ordering the applicant company to pay an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP denars ( ORG , CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) in GPE . According to the ORG , those were the amounts the applicant company had unlawfully deducted from its tax obligations during the period DATE . An appeal lodged against those decisions had no suspensive effect .

The applicant company lodged an appeal with the Minister of Finance against the decisions of DATE . In the appeal it stated that it had met all of its NORP obligations stemming from the ORG invoices and that it could not be held responsible for the ORG mistakes .

On DATE the Minister of Finance dismissed the appeal , reiterating the same findings and reasoning as in the audit report .

On DATE the applicant company received a written reprimand from the ORG . The reprimand stipulated the full amount , including interest , to be paid by the applicant company . It amounted to ORG CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant company lodged an administrative action with ORG ( GPE суд ) .

On DATE the ORG blocked the applicant company ’s bank account pursuant to the payment decisions .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG , having found that the second - instance decision had been issued by an unauthorised person acting in the name of the Minister .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG again dismissed the appeal of the applicant company , reiterating the findings from the audit .

On DATE the applicant company lodged another administrative action .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The relevant part of the judgment reads :

“ ... the cumulative conditions to obtain a deduction ... were not met . Specifically , the income of the applicant company was created by companies which failed to meet their legal obligations in relation to the payment of GPE ...

In the deliberations the court took into account the claims by the appellant that it was wrongfully deprived of the right to claim ORG deductions because the errors found in the tax assessment had pertained to other [ companies ] ... These claims were rejected by the court ... inter alia taking into account that it is in the interests of every taxpayer to know and be aware of those with whom they engage in business . ”

On DATE the applicant company appealed to ORG ( Виш управен суд ) .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the findings and conclusions of the tax authorities and stated the following :

“ ... [ T]he appellant failed to fulfil the cumulative conditions prescribed in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW to obtain a GPE deduction specifically because the monetary inflow of the appellant as a taxpayer was done by other taxpayers who failed to meet their obligations to declare or pay tax .

The court examined the complaint that all of the outstanding issues in the audit reflected errors committed by third parties and that the appellant should not be forced to bear the obligations of third parties ... but dismissed them ... having in mind that every taxpayer has an interest to enter into relations with other subjects . ”

On DATE the applicant company was removed from the register of companies and ceased to exist . According to a document issued by the register of companies , it was removed in accordance with section CARDINAL-B of LAW ( ORG за трговски друштва ) , specifically for not having submitted an DATE financial statement ( завршна сметка ) to the authorities for DATE .

The applicant company ’s bank account remained blocked by the ORG until DATE , when it was closed . Due to lack of funds on the account , the ORG failed to collect any money from the applicant company .

On DATE the prosecution for organised crime ( Основно јавно обвинителство за гонење на организиран криминал и корупција ) filed an indictment against several individuals for criminal enterprise , abuse of office and tax evasion . The indictment encompassed the individuals responsible for several , but not all , of the applicant company ’s suppliers . It was alleged that the individuals used the supplier companies to issue fake invoices which were not the result of real commercial activity . The supplier companies as legal entities were not directly indicted . The domestic courts found the accused guilty of the offences by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which became final on DATE .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant gave birth to a daughter , A.C. DATE , she married PERSON ( “ the respondent ” ) , her daughter ’s biological father .

On DATE ORG lodged a claim with ORG , seeking dissolution of the marriage , custody of GPE and child maintenance .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant interim care and custody of GPE until the marriage was dissolved .

On DATE , while the applicant and ORG were visiting a mental care institute where the child was undergoing treatment for her disturbed mental health as a result of her GPE divorce , ORG forcibly removed ORG from the applicant ’s custody and , in so doing , assaulted the latter physically , knocking her unconscious .

On DATE ORG issued an interim custody order requiring that NORP surrender custody of GPE to the applicant until the end of the marriage dissolution proceedings .

On DATE a bailiff accompanied the applicant to the respondent ’s home , requesting that the child be surrendered . The respondent ’s father and ORG were also present . The respondent stated that he would not prevent the mother from seeing her child but refused to hand her over , even if it meant paying a fine , claiming that the applicant could not provide suitable living conditions for ORG and that ORG preferred living with him .

Faced with the respondent ’s failure to comply with the enforcement order , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ; QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) , within DATE and to return the child to her mother by the same deadline .

On DATE the bailiff again went to the respondent ’s home , but there was no one there . On DATE the court contacted ORG asking for urgent action , since the applicant alleged that domestic violence was taking place there .

On DATE , the social care centre informed the court that it had advised the applicant and the respondent to visit a mental care institute in order to be provided with appropriate guidance in communicating with each other and in order for the child to resume the interrupted course of treatment . The court was informed that the Doljevac ORG had taken over responsibility for the case , since that was where the respondent ’s residence was located .

On DATE ORG ordered the respondent to pay a further fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and to return ORG to her mother .

On DATE the respondent and his father contacted the court , declaring that the child did not want to go to her mother and refusing to pay the fine .

On DATE a new attempt was made to enforce the interim order , this time in the presence of a psychologist from the Doljevac ORG , civilian police officers , the enforcement judge , a bailiff and the applicant . The child started to cry and refused to go with the applicant . The respondent stated that he had spoken with the child , encouraging her to go and live with her mother if she wanted , but the child had refused . The applicant was of the opinion that the child had been given instructions and put under pressure and was in fact strongly attached to her . She wanted to take the child immediately , regardless of her behaviour . The psychologist was against forcible transfer of the custody , claiming that it could have a negative influence on the child ’s mental health and lead to autism . The child had already showed some of those symptoms , but they stopped after she had moved into her father ’s home , where she had been living for DATE . The psychologist proposed that mother and child start to meet under the supervision of the FAC on its LOC . She also noted in TIME that the parents should cease their manipulation of the child .

On DATE the first meeting between mother and child was held on the premises of the FAC , but the applicant later told the court that it had not been successful because the child was allegedly subjected to pressure by her father .

At the next meeting , held on DATE , the child was constantly holding on to her father , crying and avoiding contact with her mother . The psychologist was not present during the meeting , being on sick leave at the time . After leaving the LOC of ORG , the applicant and respondent and other persons present started to fight . The respondent ’s father allegedly physically attacked the applicant . The court informed PERSON about the incident , seeking advice as to how to proceed further .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to enforce the interim custody order in the presence of the police .

The enforcement of the interim order was to be attempted on DATE on the LOC of ORG in the presence of the judge , a psychologist and a teacher from the Centre , the applicant and the respondent ’s representative . The respondent and the child did not appear . The child was allegedly ill .

On DATE the next enforcement attempt was made . The respondent again failed to appear . According to his representative , he had not been properly summoned . At the hearing , CARDINAL psychologists were present , CARDINAL from ORG and the other from ORG . Both gave their opinion concerning the forced return of the child to her mother , the psychologist from LOC contending that it was the only option , since the father was not willing to hand over the child voluntarily , and the psychologist from PERSON arguing against it , on the basis that it could have a negative influence on the child ’s further development .

The enforcement attempt scheduled for DATE was also postponed due to the absence of the respondent and his representative .

On DATE the respondent appeared without the child , because she was allegedly sick , but he did not submit any evidence in support of this allegation . Throughout the meeting he claimed that he was willing to hand over the child to the mother but that the child was refusing to cooperate .

On DATE the court again ordered the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and to return the child to her mother .

On DATE the court asked ORG to prepare an opinion concerning the enforcement of the interim custody order because of the difficulties encountered in the proceedings .

ORG issued an experts’ report on DATE . The report contained the opinions of a psychologist , a sociologist and a neuropsychiatrist , all of whom had conducted interviews with the child and both her parents . The experts found that the child ’s intellectual ability was on the low side and that her emotional and social maturity was underdeveloped as a result of the family situation . They also found that both parents were manipulating the child and not doing what was in her best interests . Their ultimate opinion was that the forcible removal of the child from her father and her current social environment without proper psychological preparation could at that stage provoke certain psychological disorders . The experts advised that the child should receive psychological and social counselling to help her overcome her resistance towards her mother , that the father and his family should be helped to change their attitude and stop influencing the child ’s opinion towards her mother , and that both parents should receive counselling on how to behave in the best interests of the child .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the father . The marriage was thus dissolved , ORG was granted custody of GPE , and the applicant was ordered to contribute towards her maintenance on a DATE basis . Lastly , the court held that the applicant was entitled to spend time with GPE on the LOC of ORG TIME and TIME until such time as a different access arrangement might be warranted .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG upheld ORG judgment at second and third instance , respectively .

All of the above - mentioned courts reasoned that , “ notwithstanding her earlier forcible removal from ... [ the applicant ’s custody ] ... ” , it was in the best interests of ORG to remain with her father since a separation could prove psychologically detrimental . In support of this conclusion , the courts referred to a separate opinion drafted by ORG , in addition to an expert ’s report , stating that it would indeed be advisable for GPE to remain in the environment to which she had become accustomed , where she was surrounded by love and care , and where she had made social connections ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In addition , ORG found that there was no evidence that the respondent had committed acts of violence against the child or the applicant .

On DATE ORG suspended the interim custody proceedings .

The applicant never sought enforcement of the judgment of DATE as regards the DATE meetings with the child .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , alleging a breach of her parental and family rights , essentially complaining about the non - enforcement of ORG interim custody order of DATE . She also argued that ORG ultimate ruling on the issue of ORG ’s custody had failed to take into account the child ’s best interests and had instead retroactively endorsed ORG ’s violent and unlawful conduct and had permanently separated her from her child .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint regarding the interim custody order of DATE for being out of time , having been lodged DATE after the applicant had been served with ORG judgment of DATE . With respect to the applicant ’s complaint regarding ORG , ORG rejected it on the merits , accepting ORG reasoning entirely .

On DATE ORG found GPE guilty of unlawfully removing ORG from the applicant ’s custody and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The respondent was ordered to return the child to the applicant within DATE of the date on which the judgment became final . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE , acting upon the applicant ’s initiative , the Niš municipal public prosecutor requested the revocation of the respondent ’s probation , but withdrew the request on DATE because the respondent had in the meantime been granted custody of GPE On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings seeking revocation of the probation .

Following the applicant ’s claim for review of the judgment of DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant custody of GPE and ordered ORG to contribute towards her maintenance on a DATE basis . In its reasoning the court explained that ORG had stated that she now wanted to live with the applicant and that ORG himself no longer had any objections to this arrangement . This judgment became both final and enforceable on DATE and ORG moved to the applicant ’s flat shortly thereafter .

In DATE ORG received a criminal complaint that had been lodged against GPE for failure to make maintenance payments .

It would appear that the applicant re - established contact with her daughter on DATE , that is to say after DATE , and soon afterwards GPE went to live with the applicant . However , it seems from the documents submitted by the Government that the mother - daughter relationship was not well re - established . ORG kept returning to her father whenever she had a misunderstanding with her mother . She even gave a statement to the police to the effect that her mother was maltreating her .

On DATE A.C. moved to her father ’s home and it appears that she is still living with him by choice . It would also appear that the respondent filed a claim for review of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on custody of GPE and that those proceedings are still pending .


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

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr A. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .

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

DATE and DATE the applicant had contact with an officer of the security services . He was approached by that officer with a view to acting as the liaison between the latter and a certain GPE , editorin - chief of an underground opposition newspaper . According to the applicant , his role was to provide the newspaper with information supplied by the officer of the security services which was detrimental to the authorities .

The Law of DATE on ORG ( “ the Institute Act ” ; PERSON o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej – Komisji Ścigania GPE przeciwko FAC ) entered into force on DATE . The ORG ’s tasks included , inter alia , storing and researching documents of the communist security services . The right of access to those documents was guaranteed primarily to “ injured parties ” as defined in LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG of ORG to grant him access to documents concerning him and inquired about his status as an “ injured party ” .

The PERSON of DATE on ORG was amended by the PERSON of DATE on the disclosure of information concerning documents of ORG security agencies DATE , and the content of such documents ( ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat DATE oraz treści tych dokumentów ) with the effect from DATE ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . Subsequently , the applicant ’s request submitted to the ORG was treated as a request for access to documents concerning him .

On DATE the Director of the GPE Branch of ORG issued a decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning him . He found that those documents met the conditions specified in section QUANTITY LAW , i.e. , they indicated that the applicant had acted as a secret informant of the security services .

On DATE the applicant was given access to some other documents concerning him .

The applicant appealed against the decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . He submitted that he wished to have access to all relevant documents . Furthermore , he argued that it had been the officer of security service who had acted as his informant , not the other way round .

On DATE the President of ORG upheld the decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . He endorsed the finding that in the light of the undisclosed documents the applicant had been considered by the former security services as a secret informant . Furthermore , the documents demonstrated that the applicant had undertaken to provide the security services with information .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the President of ORG with ORG . He maintained that the President of the ORG had no evidence of his alleged collaboration with the security services . He relied , among others , on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in camera and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It appears that the applicant was not summoned to the hearing . No written grounds for the judgment were prepared and served on the applicant .

Subsequently , the applicant filed a cassation appeal with ORG .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in camera and dismissed his cassation appeal . The applicant was served with the operative part of the judgment . The applicant requested the court to serve on him the written reasons for the judgment . On DATE ORG refused his request . It noted that the impugned decision of the President of the ORG had been given pursuant to LAW which also governed some aspects of the procedure before the administrative courts . Thus , in accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the amended LAW the administrative court examined an appeal against the refusal to give access to documents at a hearing held in camera . Furthermore , section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provided that written reasons for a judgment delivered at a hearing held in camera would only be prepared when the appeal was allowed . A copy of the judgment with written reasons would be served only on the President of the Institute and the appellant would be served with the operative part . Lastly , ORG observed that the PERSON on the Proceedings before ORG was not applicable to the procedure in the present case , the provisions of LAW constituting lex specialis in this respect .

In a letter dated DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the ORG had granted him access to all documents concerning him in DATE . He submitted that the reports of his alleged activity had been fabricated by an officer of the security services .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW reads :

“ Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case , without undue delay , before a competent , impartial and independent court . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life , of his honour and good reputation and to make decisions about his personal life . ”

Article QUANTITY and CARDINAL of the LAW states :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right of access to official documents and data collections concerning himself . Limitations upon such rights may be established by statute .

Everyone shall have the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information , or information acquired by means contrary to statute . ”

The Law of DATE on ORG ( “ the Institute Act ” ; PERSON o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej – Komisji Ścigania GPE przeciwko FAC ) entered into force on DATE . The ORG ’s tasks included , inter alia , storing and researching documents of the communist security services . The right of access to those documents was guaranteed primarily to “ injured parties ” as defined in LAW .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provided that an “ injured party ” ( pokrzywdzony ) was a person on whom the ORG security services deliberately collected information , including secretly . However , a person who subsequently became an officer , employee or a collaborator of the security services could not be considered an “ injured party ” ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

According to section QUANTITY of the Institute Act everyone had the right to inquire whether he or she was an injured party within the meaning of the LAW . Person certified as an “ injured party ” had the right to obtain information from the ORG about documents concerning him ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . ORG had the obligation to inform the “ injured party ” about the manner of access to the documents concerning him and to provide him , on request , copies of those documents ( section QUANTITY CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the ORG challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW concerning access to documents held by ORG .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment in case no . K CARDINAL/CARDINAL . It held , inter alia , that section CARDINAL § CARDINAL and section QUANTITY taken in conjunction with section QUANTITY of LAW , in so far as they deprived interested persons DATE other than injured parties – of the right to be provided with information about documents concerning them , were incompatible with Article CARDINAL ( protection of private life ) and LAW QUANTITY and CARDINAL ( the right of access to official documents concerning oneself and the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information ) of the LAW .

ORG noted that LAW justifiably afforded special status to the “ injured party ” and bestowed on this category of persons a number of rights . It identified under LAW a distinct category of persons , namely those who applied for the status of the “ injured party ” and whose applications were refused . The refusal resulted either from the lack of documents concerning a person seeking the status or from the fact that the security services had not collected information on them . The Constitutional Court disagreed with the ORG that the ORG ’s refusal to classify a person as the “ injured party ” had been tantamount to an official declaration that such person had been an officer , employee or collaborator of the ORG security services . At the same time it pointed to the incoherent criteria used by ORG in classifying persons as collaborators of the security services . It also noted that ORG archives contained information which had been , in principle , collected without any legal basis and often unlawfully . ORG underlined that the constitutional right of access to official documents ( LAW ) was related solely to the documents concerning a given person as a subject of interest of the security services . It did not extend to documents which were created by a given person in his capacity of an officer , employee or collaborator of the security services .

LAW was amended by the Law of DATE on disclosing information about the documents of the ORG security services from DATE and the content of these documents ( “ the CARDINAL LAW ” ; ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat QUANTITY treści tych dokumentów ) . The amendments entered into force on DATE .

The DATE LAW and LAW were further amended by LAW DATE . These amendments entered into force on DATE .

The amended sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL regarding access to documents held by the ORG stated in so far as relevant :

“ LAW . CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to request ORG for access to copies of documents concerning him .

The ORG grants access to copies of available documents concerning the applicant , which are referred to in DATE , with the exception of the following :

CARDINAL ) documents created by the applicant or with his participation ... in connection with his employment or service in the ORG security agencies or in connection with his activities carried out as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ;

CARDINAL ) NORP documents whose content indicates that the applicant :

a ) was considered by the security services as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ,

b ) undertook to provide information to the ORG security service or to assist such service in whatever form in its covert activities ,

c ) executed tasks given by the ORG security service , in particular provided information to the service . ...

Section CARDINAL . CARDINAL . A refusal to allow request , referred to in DATE , in so far as it concerned access to documents :

CARDINAL ) NORP created by the applicant or with his participation ... in connection with his employment or service in the ORG security agencies or in connection with his activities carried out as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ;

CARDINAL ) NORP whose content indicates that the applicant :

c ) executed tasks given by the ORG security service , in particular provided information to the service ,

is effected in the form of an administrative decision . ... ”

The amended LAW also put specific restrictions on the judicial proceedings in which the administrative courts reviewed the lawfulness of a decision issued by the President of ORG Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that the administrative court examined a complaint against such a decision at a hearing held in camera . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW excluded the application of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of of the Law of DATE on Procedure before ORG in the impugned proceedings . As a result , the party to the proceedings before the administrative courts in such cases could not plead his case before the court . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW stipulated that a party to the proceedings before the administrative courts could solely receive an operative part of the judgment . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that the provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL were applicable in the cassation appeal proceedings before ORG .

In the case no . K CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG reviewed the constitutionality of the CARDINAL Lustration Act and LAW as amended which had been challenged by a group of members of parliament . It gave its judgment on the issues of lustration and access to documents held by ORG DATE .

With regard to the issue of access to documents , ORG struck down as unconstitutional section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . This provision excluded access of interested persons to documents indicating that they had collaborated or assisted the former ORG security services in their undercover activities . ORG noted that the LAW guaranteed to everyone the right of access to official documents and data collections concerning oneself ( LAW ) and the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information , or information acquired by unlawful means ( LAW ) . This latter right , which was related to the right to privacy guaranteed in LAW , could not be statutorily restricted to a certain category of persons . ORG underlined that no ORG interest could legitimise or justify preservation in official records of information which was untrue , incomplete or acquired in an unlawful manner .

The judgment was promulgated on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE the unconstitutional provisions were abrogated .

On DATE the parliament passed amendments to LAW which entered into force on DATE . According to the new wording of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Institute Act everyone had the right , inter alia , of access to documents concerning him which were deposited with the ORG and the right to obtain copies thereof .

In DATE ORG and ORG put to the ORG legal questions on the constitutionality of various provisions of LAW , including sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment . It held that section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , in its version applicable up until DATE , was incompatible , among others , with Articles DATE and QUANTITY in conjunction with LAW ( the principle of proportionality ) . ORG further held that section QUANTITY CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW was incompatible with , inter alia , LAW ( the right to a court ) in conjunction with LAW .

ORG relied on its findings in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . K CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It summarised its approach in that case as follows :

“ ... for institutional , functional and procedural reasons LAW together with LAW constitute CARDINAL instrument . In this connection , if the documents created and collected by the ORG security services , meant to indicate the collaboration within the meaning of section LAW § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Lustration Act , are constituting the basis for drawing adverse social , moral , political as well as legal consequences in respect of persons subjected to lustration and other persons whose data were registered and included in catalogues [ of the Institute ] , [ then ] such persons , in a democratic ORG ruled by law , have to have the right to defend their dignity , reputation and good name . Accordingly , they have to be accorded the right of access to the full range of documents concerning them and used against them . ... This right has to encompass access to documents , deposited with the ORG , in which interested persons were attributed an involvement in the creation of these documents . This is relevant from the point of view of the content of those documents , conclusions formulated and drawn by the officers of the ORG security services on the basis of the transmitted information and , in particular , from the point of view of the supposed intention of a person passing on the information to “ violate the rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen ” .

The Constitutional Court observed that section QUANTITY ) of LAW was of procedural character , but it further specified the grounds for a decision refusing access to certain documents . These conditions matched the content of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW which had been abrogated as a result of the finding of its unconstitutionality . Nonetheless , the administrative courts submitted to ORG that in practice section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) had been used by ORG as a substantive basis for decisions refusing access to documents specified in this provision . It further noted that after the said judgment the parliament amended LAW on CARDINAL occasions ; however it did not amend section QUANTITY ) .

ORG found that a limitation on access to documents of persons , which were referred to in the unconstitutional section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , which was imposed in a procedural rather than substantive form in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , amounted to unjustified interference with the informational autonomy of an individual and restricted the constitutional right to request the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information ( LAW ) . ORG held that limitations specified in section QUANTITY ) of FAC on access of interested persons to official documents concerning them were constitutionally disproportionate , and thus in breach of Articles DATE and QUANTITY in conjunction with LAW .

ORG noted that its findings were consistent with the decision of the legislator expressed in the amendments of DATE to LAW which introduced the possibility for everyone to obtain access to copies of documents held by the Institute .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on Procedure before ORG a party to the proceedings which have ended with a final judgment may request that the proceedings be reopened if ORG has found that the legal provision on the basis of which this judgment was given was incompatible with LAW .


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

Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

By a final decision of DATE GPE Court convicted the applicant of rape of a minor and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant ’s detention started on DATE and lasted until DATE , when he was released from prison on probation . On DATE the applicant was again detained , following a new conviction for the rape of CARDINAL girls who were minors , and was incarcerated in FAC .

NORP In his letters to the Court , the applicant contended that in GPE and GPE Prisons he had been kept in overcrowded cells .

Despite the fact that he was a non - smoker , he had had to share a cell with smokers . He lodged several complaints with the domestic authorities in this respect , claiming that he had health problems because of the smoke he had inhaled from his inmates’ cigarettes . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed CARDINAL of the applicant ’s complaints and ordered the placement of the applicant in a non - smoking cell . From the information submitted by the applicant it is not clear whether that decision was enforced , but based on his written observations it could be inferred that he had been placed in a non - smoking cell .

NORP Moreover , the applicant alleged that he had been transferred from CARDINAL prison to another or from prison to court in vans with detainees who smoked .

The applicant was mostly detained in FAC , where he spent DATE . The prison authorities took into account the fact that the applicant had been convicted of the rape of a minor and for most of his stay he had therefore been placed alone in an individual cell of QUANTITY .

The applicant was detained in PERSON on several occasions , for DATE in total . On these occasions he was detained in the medical unit of the prison or in cells used for transit .

According to the information provided by ORG and forwarded to ORG , the applicant was held in the following cells :

- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;

- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY containing CARDINAL beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;

- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY containing three beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;

- cell no CARDINAL neasuring QUANTITY containing ten beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;

- cell no . CARDINAL measuring CARDINAL . QUANTITY containing nineteen beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;

- and cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY containing nine beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) .

The Government did not provide any information concerning either the number of the detainees who had occupied the cells or the time spent by the applicant in each of the above - mentioned cells .

The Government submitted that both prisons mentioned by the applicant had adequate natural and electric lighting and ventilation . Both prisons had a central heating system providing adequate heating in DATE . All of the cells in which the applicant had been held had had the requisite furniture .

Cold water had always been available and hot water was available DATE according to a schedule approved by the prison authorities .

Concerning the hygiene in the cell , the Government submitted that prisoners had been responsible for cleaning the cells and were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration .

The applicant had been transferred between the prison facilities in vehicles fitted with windows , lights , heating and sunroofs . These vehicles had had CARDINAL seats . Smoking was strictly prohibited during transfers , and the applicant had anyway been transported separately from smokers .


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP The applicant , PERSON , stated that she is a national of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) and that she was born in DATE . She is currently living in the GPE . The President decided not to disclose the applicant ’s identity to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On an unspecified day in DATE the applicant fled from her native ORG to the GPE . She arrived on DATE and applied for asylum . On DATE she was interviewed by the immigration authorities about her identity , nationality and travel route . On DATE she submitted corrections and additions ( correcties en aanvullingen ) to the report drawn up of the first interview ( eerste gehoor ) . On DATE , the applicant was interviewed about her reason for seeking asylum . On DATE she submitted corrections and additions to the report drawn up of the second interview ( nader gehoor ) . In the interviews she gave the following account .

She was of GPE ( ethnic NORP ) origin and came from PERSON , the capital of the GPE province in the east of the ORG . In DATE her father was killed in a fight with members of an angry crowd who had entered her family home in PERSON , screaming that the GPE should leave the country . The applicant ’s mother fled into the woods , together with the applicant and one of her sisters . Her older sister PERSON and CARDINAL of her brothers also fled , but after the incident she did not see them again . After the death of her father , the applicant and her remaining family were given a house and financial aid by PERSON , a friend of her father ’s . In DATE QUANTITY or CARDINAL men entered the applicant ’s home , initially looking for Banyamulenge men and boys . They did not find any . The men then raped the applicant , as well as her mother and sister . Afterwards , the applicant was taken to a house where there were other women . She was raped and ill - treated on a DATE basis . After DATE , in DATE , a man acting at the request of PERSON managed to free her and took her to PERSON house . After she recovered the applicant was moved at the instigation of PERSON to her GPE house in the PERSON neighbourhood in PERSON . In DATE anti - Banyamulenge sentiments in the NORP population resurfaced again . The applicant was hassled at school but eventually obtained a university diploma in DATE . For a while nothing major happened . Around DATE or DATE , unknown men entered her GPE home , looking for GPE men and boys . They raped her grandmother , chopped off her grandfather ’s arm and leg because he had refused to rape the applicant , raped the applicant , killed both her grandparents and took the applicant with them . As before , the applicant was taken to a house where there were other women and girls . She was sexually abused and ill - treated DATE . On DATE a man acting for PERSON came to the house and took the applicant with him .

On DATE the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON Minister ” ) notified the applicant of his intention ( voornemen ) to reject her asylum application . The certificate of loss of documents ( attestation de perte des pièces ) submitted by her was found to be a forgery . The certificate , which concerned the applicant ’s loss of her voting card ( carte d’électeur ) , was also found to be unauthentic in that it had not been drawn up by the competent authority . As the applicant gave incorrect statements about the document and continued to claim that it was authentic , the Minister found that serious doubts had arisen as to the applicant ’s claimed identity and nationality . The absence of any other travel or identity documents and her inability to give a consistent , detailed and verifiable account of her journey to the GPE further detracted from the credibility of her account . The Minister also considered it odd that for someone who had lived virtually her entire life in PERSON and who had gone to university , the applicant had hardly any basic knowledge about her hometown . For instance , she did not know the former colonial name of the town , who the mayor was , and that a “ khadafi ” is a petrol seller . She had to think about the name of the cathedral and anthem of the ORG , and she did not know the colour of car licence plates . The Minister therefore found it unlikely that the applicant actually came from PERSON . As she had failed to establish her identity , her asylum claim , which was based on her having lived in PERSON , was found to lack credibility .

NORP In written comments ( zienswijze ) made on DATE , the applicant maintained her account and gave explanations for her inability to answer certain questions about PERSON . She further requested to have a language analysis conducted to prove her origin .

In a decision of the same date the Minister rejected the applicant ’s asylum application , confirming the finding that as she had failed to demonstrate her identity and nationality , her asylum claim lacked credibility . The Minister further found that there was no need for a language analysis test .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , accompanied by a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) to stay her expulsion pending the outcome of her appeal .

On DATE a hearing took place before ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It was attended by the applicant ’s sister Ms E. who was living in the GPE and had obtained GPE nationality . She had been tracked down by ORG ) . The purpose of her attendance was to prove the applicant ’s identity and nationality . To this end , PERSON submitted documents concerning her own first asylum interview in the GPE , during which she had mentioned the applicant as a family member who had not accompanied her on her flight there .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal and the accompanying request for a provisional measure . The judge accepted the Minister ’s decision and the underlying reasoning . The submissions of the applicant ’s sister PERSON were not taken into account by the judge .

NORP The applicant ’s further appeal to ORG of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak PERSON ) was dismissed on DATE . ORG found that there were no grounds for quashing the impugned ruling ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section PERSON ) of LAW , no further reasoning was required as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interests of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against that decision .

The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , DATE ) .

At the material time , the respondent Government ’s policy on asylum seekers from particular countries was devised by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) on the basis of official country assessment reports published by the Minister of ORG on the countries of origin of asylum seekers .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) adopted a moratorium on decisions on asylum applications and expulsions ( besluit- en vertrekmoratorium ) for asylum seekers of NORP origin hailing from the east of the ORG , including the provinces of GPE and GPE .

The moratorium was lifted by the Deputy Minister on DATE . That policy decision , published in ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , was based on the contents of an official country assessment report ( ambtsbericht ) on the ORG released by the Minister of ORG on DATE . It was found in this report that there was no systemic , structural and organised discrimination of NORP in the ORG , that there was no structural violence in the ORG against the NORP population or other NORP with a NORP background and that NORP groups could obtain protection from the ORG authorities . Although the general situation in the provinces of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE in the eastern part of the ORG continued to be considered to fall within the scope of LAW DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( “ the LAW ” ; see , for further details , NORP and ORG v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , an internal protection alternative was found to be available in other parts of the ORG , including GPE , for asylum seekers hailing from those provinces who did not qualify for refugee status within the meaning of the DATE LAW relating to ORG .

In DATE the Minister of ORG issued a new official country assessment report on the ORG , according to which the general situation in the provinces of GPE and GPE remained unsettled and unpredictable and that the situation of the NORP in the rest of the ORG , including GPE , remained unchanged in comparison with the last reporting period . As regards the situation of women , the report reads :

“ Women in the ORG occupy a subordinate position . Discrimination against women is widespread and they often have no access to decision - making , adequate healthcare , clean water , basic sanitation and legal remedies . The general position of women remained consistently bad during the reporting period . Several NGOs are active in the ORG in the area of women ’s rights and the improvement of the position of women . A draft bill for equal treatment between men and women , which has been taken up for examination in parliament , has not yet been adopted during the reporting period .

The LAW stipulates that the government is to see to it that sexual violence against women is eliminated , in particular when it is used as a weapon aiming at destabilising or disrupting the family . Such forms of sexual violence are classified in the constitution as a crime against humanity .

Sexual violence against women and girls is widespread throughout the entire country . Cases of sexual violence are most numerous in areas of war where rape is often used as a weapon in the conflict . The ORG [ ORG ] registered from DATE CARDINAL victims of sexual violence : CARDINAL women in the LOC province , QUANTITY women and CARDINAL men in GPE , QUANTITY women in GPE and QUANTITY women in GPE . In DATE the ORG registered CARDINAL human rights violations , including CARDINAL cases of sexual violence ...

On DATE President PERSON appointed PERSON as special advisor in the fight against sexual violence and the recruitment of child soldiers . She declared on DATE that remarkable progress had been made in GPE in the fight against sexual violence . ORG announced [ at the ] end of DATE a national fight against sexual violence committed by NORP soldiers . The police have trained special units in GPE and GPE to combat sexual violence . ...

For most women in the ORG is it difficult to call in protection against sexual violence . In theory it is indeed possible to report rape but in practice women decline to do so , due to social stigma and lack of confidence in the judicial system . When a victim decides to turn to the authorities , it remains questionable whether her case will be taken up . Police officers nearly always ask victims for a financial contribution for carrying out the investigation .

... the NORP NGO LIZADEEL [ Ligue de la Zone Afrique pour la ORG , ORG ] has small centres in various towns in the ORG where victims of sexual violence are accommodated and accompanied to medical care facilities . There is a special telephone number for reporting sexual violence ...

In GPE , a single woman with a job and able to fend for herself has sufficient freedom ... Single women from other parts of the country can join their own ethnic community ( communauté ) in GPE . A single woman from out of town – who has no family in town – can temporarily find shelter with someone from their own community . Single women also seek support from ORG or CARDINAL of the many awakening [ evangelical ] churches in GPE . In GPE legal training is given with a view to prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence . The ORG runs a shelter for traumatised women in GPE . ”

In a letter of DATE , the Deputy Minister informed ORG of ORG that on the basis of the official country assessment report on the ORG of DATE the provinces of GPE and GPE continued to be considered to fall within the scope of Article PERSON ) of the Qualification Directive , but that this qualification no longer applied to the provinces of GPE and GPE and therefore the “ CARDINAL(c ) policy ” in respect of these regions was discontinued .

The summary of the report on the “ Conditions for NORP in GPE ” , published on DATE by ORG , reads :

“ The PERSON share of the population of GPE is fairly small , but they have played a political role in the country that is much more significant than their number would lead one to expect . The NORP population of GPE has always been rather small . When the second Congo war broke out in DATE , NORP were victims of large pogroms in GPE after they were collectively blamed for GPE ’s interference in NORP politics by the country ’s president and authorities . During and after the pogroms , the NORP who survived were either evacuated or managed to leave GPE by themselves . Since DATE , there have been no reports of human rights violations against NORP in GPE . This can be explained partly by there being few NORP living there , and partly by political circumstances that differ from those present at the outbreak of the second Congo war in DATE . ”

The main findings of the report “ Situation des femmes seules à GPE ” , released on DATE by ORG ) states :

“ In a country which ranks among the lowest according to the Human development index , women are [ also ] subject to obvious discrimination . Already vulnerable as a woman , a single woman deprived of a family or a social network is even more vulnerable without a means of existence . However , some single women can organise [ themselves ] in GPE and find support to improve their living conditions and attempt to secure their financial independence . ”


Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Violation of Article 13+9 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)

Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

Word of Life is an international religious organisation based in GPE , GPE . In DATE , CARDINAL non - profit organisations affiliated with ORG ( NORP на живот ) were registered by ORG under ORG , and one of these organisations opened a Bible study centre in GPE . However , on DATE ORG reversed ORG decision to register the CARDINAL organisations , on the ground that they had not submitted the necessary applications to renew their registration within DATE time - limit which had been introduced on DATE following amendment of ORG . Following ORG decision , the CARDINAL organisations affiliated with ORG were deleted from the registry of non - profit organisations . Moreover , the organisations were not registered in accordance with LAW and the Bible study centre was not registered with ORG . Word of Life therefore had no legal status in GPE at the time of the events in question .

On an unknown date in DATE a complaint was submitted to the office of GPE by ORG with ORG , raising concerns about the activities of ORG in GPE . On DATE , having carried out an investigation , the prosecutor ’s office adopted a decision stating that the “ sect ” had an influence on its followers which increased the risk of suicide and other psychological problems . Membership might lead to the severance of family and social ties with the wider community ; followers were prohibited from watching television or reading literature other than the Bible or from undergoing any form of surgical intervention . In conclusion , the prosecutor decided to order the restriction of the right of members of the CARDINAL organisations linked to ORG from assembling to promote their beliefs and from continuing to operate the Bible study centre . Relying on LAW ( “ the DATE Code ” ) , which allowed the prosecutor to take all measures necessary to prevent the commission of a criminal offence where there was a suspicion that an offence might be committed , the prosecutor ordered the police to take measures to restrict the organisation ’s access to places where it could hold meetings and preach about its beliefs and convictions . Following an appeal by members of the community , the above decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor .

At all relevant times the applicant was a member of Word of Life . Following the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , groups of Word of Life members organised meetings in private homes , including that of the applicant . On DATE a prosecutor granted permission for a search of the applicant ’s flat . On DATE the applicant was summonsed and interviewed by the police in relation to her religious beliefs and to meetings of members of ORG in her home . The police then accompanied the applicant to her flat and searched it . They seized a number of items , including audio tapes with religious content , notebooks with sermons , brochures , books , magazines and video tapes .

After the search the police issued a warning order ( протокол за TIME ) under LAW instructing the applicant not to host further meetings of members of the religious community . The order relied also on the decision of the prosecutor of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the GPE police , seeking return of her chattels and damages under the CARDINAL State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act ( “ the CARDINAL LAW ” ) in respect of the above measures , which she claimed breached her right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG partially allowed the action , finding that the applicant ’s questioning by the police and the warning order had been lawful , but that the search and the seizure had been unlawful as they had not been undertaken in the framework of any criminal investigation and as the items seized had not been intended to be used in criminal proceedings . Making an assessment under the general law of tort rather than LAW , the court awarded the applicant MONEY ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at current rates of exchange ) for damages and ordered that the items seized on CARDINAL DATE be returned .

Upon appeals by the parties , on DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment insofar as it concerned the order for the police to return to the applicant the chattels seized . It remitted the remainder of the case concerning liability for damages for fresh consideration under LAW .

Following a new examination of the case , on DATE the ORG dismissed the claim for damages . It found that the impugned actions of the police could not be qualified as administrative acts because the police had acted pursuant to the orders of the prosecution authorities . As to the prosecution authorities themselves , they could not be held liable under LAW for decisions of the type in question .

Upon an appeal by the applicant , in a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG findings under LAW . ORG observed that the prosecution service had ordered the measures and that the police officers who were involved had merely assisted the prosecution authorities as they were obliged to do under LAW of the DATE Code .

The relevant domestic law concerning freedom of religion , the activities of unregistered religious organisations , searches and seizures and the prosecution ’s power to order measures for the prevention of crime was summarised in the ORG ’s judgment in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE and DATE , DATE DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW on State responsibility are set out in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

The relevant domestic law regarding remedies for unreasonably long civil proceedings was set out in GPE and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . LANGUAGE , DATE .


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)

Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALrd ORG of the Kirovskiy District of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s action against ORG in which he sought the increase of DATE pension and military - related benefits .

On DATE the ORG of GPE quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the first applicant ’s action in part , awarding him a lump sum of MONEY . The judgment became final .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the judgment of DATE on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law by ORG and upheld the judgment of DATE .

The second applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , GPE . She was the widow of Mr PERSON who died of cancer in DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE acknowledged that Mr PERSON had been exposed to radioactive emissions following a nuclear accident at the GPE power plant in DATE .

In DATE the applicant sued ORG for the DATE compensation in connection with the loss of the breadwinner .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected her claim on the ground that she failed to show that she had been financially dependent on her husband on DATE of his death .

On DATE the ORG quashed this judgment and partly granted the applicant ’s claim . It held that ORG should pay the applicant DATE compensation to be determined in accordance with law .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory review , quashed the appeal judgment of DATE and remitted the matter to the appeal court , noting that the lower instance court did not duly examined evidence and made wrong application of the substantive law .

The judgment of DATE was executed DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing and rejected the second applicant ’s claim .


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);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , in GPE .

Since DATE the applicant has been infected with hepatitis C.

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of knifepoint rape with an accomplice .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the Town Court ” ) remanded him in custody pending trial . The court noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence , and held that if he remained at large he might abscond from the investigation and the court and continue his criminal activity .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE ORG held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and should be extended until DATE . The court reiterated that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that gave grounds to believe that if released he might continue his criminal activity . In addition the court noted that he should not be released , because this might prevent the investigator from performing certain investigative actions .

On DATE ORG ordered the extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It endorsed the reasons for the extension of his detention which had been given before . It also noted that the investigating authorities needed time to perform certain investigative actions , to draft a bill of indictment , and to provide him with an opportunity to study his case file . It further observed that the applicant ’s neighbours had given negative references regarding his character .

On DATE ORG granted the investigator ’s request to extend the applicant ’s detention . The request was based on the arguments that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime , and that if released he might abscond . The investigator also noted that he had to perform certain investigative actions and ensure that the applicant had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the case file . The applicant argued that he was a student who had a stable place of residence , and that he could not abscond as he required in - patient medical treatment for his hepatitis PERSON also provided some positive references concerning his character . The court accepted the investigator ’s arguments , and extended the detention until DATE .

The applicant appealed against the order of CARDINAL DATE , complaining that insufficient reasoning had been given for that decision . He also noted that his arguments had not been addressed by ORG , and that the investigating authorities had unnecessarily extended the period for his familiarisation with the case file .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It held that his arguments could not constitute grounds for the overturning of the impugned order on appeal .

On DATE the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant ’s detention for DATE to give the applicant an opportunity to study the case file . In response to the applicant ’s arguments , ORG noted :

“ ... The circumstances cited by the investigator [ concerning the need to ensure the applicant ’s familiarisation with the case file ] were already [ sufficient ] grounds for the detention orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The case file contains the order of DATE , which provides that [ the applicant ] had until DATE to study the case file . Accordingly , the extension of his detention for DATE is an excessive measure . During the hearing the investigator and the prosecutor referred to their busy schedule , which prevented the authorities from ensuring [ the applicant ’s ] familiarisation with his CARDINAL-page file on a DATE basis . The study of the file required the applicant to be transported from a temporary detention facility to a court building . However , those arguments can not be accepted by the court , as they are not compatible with the requirements of LAW , which provides that everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial . Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial . ” The court finds that the investigating authorities unnecessarily extended the investigation . Accordingly , the request in question should be partly dismissed ... ”

Taking into account the above , the court extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE , until DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on procedural grounds , finding that ORG only had power either to uphold the investigator ’s request or to reject it . LAW GPE did not allow such requests to be granted in part .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . This decision referred to the fact that the applicant was accused of a serious offence and that there was a need to perform “ certain investigative actions ” .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . It rejected the ORG ’s character and the necessity to perform “ some investigative actions ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s case file was remitted to ORG for examination on the merits .

By virtue of a decision of DATE ORG ordered a preliminary court hearing in the applicant ’s criminal case . In the descriptive part of this decision the court mentioned , among other things , that the measure of restraint which had been applied to the applicant must remain unchanged . The judge set no time - limits for the applicant ’s detention . No separate court order with regard to the applicant ’s detention was issued until DATE .

On DATE the prosecution applied to the court for an extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence , and held that if released he might abscond from the investigation and the court and obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case . The applicant applied for release on bail , stating that he was suffering from hepatitis C and that there were no circumstances which would be capable of justifying the excessive length of his detention . The court refused his application . It held that the grounds for his detention remained unchanged and that he could receive medical treatment for hepatitis C in a detention facility . The applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court once again relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant . No other grounds for his detention were provided by the court .

On DATE ORG extended the detention until DATE . This time the court referred to the seriousness of the charges and to the risk that if at liberty he could hamper the establishment of the truth in the case .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of DATE . His claim was received by the appeal court on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the impugned decision of DATE on appeal . The appeal court added a new argument . It stated that the parties had significantly contributed to the length of the trial proceedings . This was due in particular to the fact that the last court hearing was adjourned owing to the absence of the defence lawyer , who was unwell . Taking into account the above and the information on the applicant ’s character , ORG found that his detention should not be lifted . By virtue of a decision of DATE the higher court refused to review the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG examined a new application by the prosecuting party for an extension of the detention . Relying on the seriousness of the charges and the risk of absconding , the court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE , referring to the progress of his hepatitis C , the applicant asked the court to change his detention to house arrest . ORG refused , observing that he had been offered medical treatment but had refused to undergo such treatment in the detention facility ; he had thereby deliberately damaged his own health .

On DATE ORG examined the investigator ’s application for an extension of the applicant ’s detention and the defence ’s request for a change to the measure of restraint . The court restated its earlier reasoning , and approved the extension of the detention until DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant . On DATE he was transferred from the remand prison to a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE , after the psychiatric examination , the applicant was returned to a temporary detention facility .

On DATE ORG once again extended his detention and dismissed his request for the release on bail . It repeated that the grounds for the applicant ’s detention remained unchanged , that the applicant was accused of a serious offence , and that if released he could obstruct the criminal investigation . The detention was extended until DATE .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention ended on DATE of his conviction , CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the prosecution case file was received by ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of knifepoint rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG upheld the sentence on appeal .

After the applicant ’s arrest of DATE he was placed in the temporary detention facility of ORG of the Interior of GPE ( “ the Akhtubinsk IVS ” ) and then remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . He was detained in these CARDINAL facilities intermittently during DATE , DATE , up to DATE . It appears that the principal location of his detention during this period was IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and that he was held in ORG or transported there on several occasions to enable him to take part in the investigation , acquaint himself with the criminal case file , attend hearings concerning the extension of his detention ( on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ) and hearings of his criminal case ( as a minimum CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) .

According to the applicant , his cell measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL persons , some of whom were suffering from tuberculosis . It was not equipped with individual sleeping places . The detainees had to sleep on a QUANTITY podium which provided sleeping places for CARDINAL or QUANTITY of them . The interior walls were covered with rough cement . The cell was infested with rats , lice , ants , flies and other insects . It was filled with tobacco smoke , because the access of fresh air was blocked . The ventilation system did not work and the only window in the cell was covered by a metal sheet . The cell had CARDINAL ORG lamp , which was on TIME . During DATE the temperature in the cell was QUANTITY . In the DATE the detainees suffered from “ terrible cold ” . They could not leave the cell without authorisation and were not allowed to move freely around the facility . CARDINAL times a day they were escorted to toilet facilities in groups of CARDINAL . The cell was not equipped with a lavatory pan or running water . Inmates were provided with a single bucket for both waste and lavatory purposes . The bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell , and thus offered no privacy . The applicant and his cellmates had CARDINAL meals a day of very poor quality at TIME All of them ate from QUANTITY pan using CARDINAL spoons .

The applicant also submitted a formal warning of DATE no . DATE , issued by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and addressed to the Head of ORG . It reads as follows :

“ The inspection report indicates that ORG does not satisfy the requirements of domestic legislation applicable to detention facilities . It is not equipped with medical staff . Accordingly , prophylactic and anti - epidemic measures are not performed . The GPE clothes and bedding are not disinfected on a regular basis . The register of medical examinations , the sanitary register and the register of disinfection are not properly completed . The detainees are not examined on admission by a medical professional . The authorities do not ensure a DATE shower . The above leads to the detention of persons with various infections , sexually transmitted diseases , skin diseases , mental disorders and other diseases alongside healthy inmates . This causes the spread of diseases among the detainees ... and the staff members of ORG .

It has been stated that ORG of the ORG , GPE , has a medical assistant who carries out superficial inspections of ORG , and assesses whether the domestic standards are complied with . This is not so . This person can not be considered an employee of ORG , because he does not carry out the entirety of the duties of such a post .

ORG has already warned the detention facility ’s management about the inappropriate sanitary conditions in LOC , but no effective action has been taken by the authorities .

In view of the above , and the provisions of section CARDINAL of LAW pertaining to ORG ( “ LAW ” ) ” I prescribe :

An internal investigation to determine whether a disciplinary punishment should be applied to the responsible officials .

Effective measures to prevent and put right violations of LAW pertaining to detention of suspects and accused persons ( “ the Suspects and Accused Persons ( Detention ) Act ” .

Action to comply with this warning without delay : ORG to be informed within DATE of the action that has been taken . ”

The Government argued that applicant ’s cell was disinfected on a regular basis and that he was provided with meals in line with the expected standards . They agreed that overall the conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS were incompatible with the requirements of LAW .

NORP The applicant stated that the conditions of his detention in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL had been appalling .

The Government noted that the applicant was held in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL on many occasions DATE and DATE . Their submissions as regards the conditions of detention in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL may be summarised as follows :

According to the Government , the applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed and bedding , even though the personal space afforded to him was , on certain occasions , less than the statutory CARDINAL sq . m per person . The applicant was provided with CARDINAL meals per day . The quality of the food was subject to the requisite quality control .

Every cell in the remand prison where the applicant was detained was equipped with powered ventilation . The ventilation system was in working order . Natural ventilation was achieved by means of trickle vents in the windows . The temperature in the cells was CARDINAL . The heating and water supply were in compliance with the applicable standards . There were no metal bars on the windows . Accordingly , access to daylight was not blocked . The artificial lighting was in compliance with the applicable specifications ; there were QUANTITY lamps , of QUANTITY and QUANTITY , which were on from TIME and from TIME respectively .

The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a QUANTITY high brick or metal screen ensuring privacy . The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected .

Detainees were permitted to take a shower at least once DATE for not TIME .

The Government lastly submitted that the detention facility had had a fully equipped medical station .

The applicant submitted that he had been frequently transported between ORG and IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL during his detention in these CARDINAL facilities and that the conditions of his transportation had been appalling . First , he was deprived of the opportunity to sleep , because he was taken out of his cell at TIME and returned there at TIME Secondly , on DATE of transportation the applicant did not receive any food ( including travel rations ) or water and on every occasion the prison vans were severely overcrowded . Lastly , during the transfers the detainees had to use a bottle or a plastic bag to wash themselves . There was also no possibility to use the toilet .

The Government provided the ORG with the date of the applicant ’s transfers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but did not submit any other information about the conditions of the applicant ’s transportation .

The applicant stated that before his arrest he had contracted hepatitis C. During pre - trial detention he was placed in a cell with other detainees who were infected with tuberculosis , leading to his contracting that disease . He further stated that during the detention he suffered from dermatosis and dental problems . According to the applicant , he was neither provided with adequate medical treatment nor with an appropriate diet .

In accordance with a medical report of an unspecified date , submitted by the ORG , during the applicant ’s detention he was provided with adequate medical treatment . The report reads as follows :

“ Retrospective analysis of the submitted medical records confirm that [ the applicant ] had been suffering from hepatitis C since DATE .

During his detention [ the applicant ] underwent several medical examinations and received medical treatment . The last [ in - patient ] treatment was provided in DATE in the hospital of DATE . The results of his medical examination indicate that [ the applicant ] had chronic hepatitis C of low activity . In connection with this he underwent basic treatment and antivirus treatment . He was provided with hepatoprotectors and vitamins . At the present time [ the applicant ] continues to receive pathogenetic and aetiological treatment .

On DATE at admission to IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL he underwent an X - ray examination , [ which indicated no pathology ] of the lungs . In DATE and DATE [ the applicant ] had CARDINAL such examinations . During his stay in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL he was often transported to ORG to take part in court hearings or investigative actions .

In DATE he complained of weakness , pain in the right part of his stomach and a bitter taste in his mouth . Owing to these complaints he was diagnosed with hepatitis and on DATE he was sent to a regional hospital , were he underwent a complex medical examination . This examination indicated that he had infiltrative tuberculosis in the lower part of his right lung , pneumonia and hepatitis C.

After anti - inflammation and anti - bacterial treatment the aforementioned diagnosis was confirmed . [ The applicant ] was transferred to [ a special hospital ] where he received specific complex anti - tuberculosis treatment from DATE to DATE . Later , the patient refused further in - patient treatment and was transported to IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE an expert panel of the regional anti - tuberculosis clinic confirmed the diagnosis and concluded that his treatment had been prompt and adequate and had led to a positive health outcome .

On DATE the expert panel stated that the [ applicant ] had recovered from tuberculosis . Only some insignificant traces of the disease remained in his lungs .

Until the patient ’s departure for a penal colony on DATE , he received anti - relapse treatment .

[ The applicant ’s ] disease was apparently caused by his frequent transportation to the ORG , chronic stress , hepatitis C , his anti - social behaviour and smoking .

The patient ’s disease was promptly diagnosed by means of an X - ray examination , and efficiently treated in line with the relevant standards . ”

The Government also submitted the applicant ’s voluminous medical records , covering the period from DATE . They show that during his detention the applicant underwent CARDINAL X - ray examinations , several HIV tests , and a variety of other medical examinations , including blood tests . Besides the history of his tuberculosis and hepatitis treatment , the medical records contain information about the treatment of his skin diseases . Thus , in DATE following his complaints regarding itching , the applicant was examined by a doctor , diagnosed with streptodermosis and provided with an ointment . In DATE he was diagnosed with a recent dermatitis and was also provided with ointments and other medicines . DATE he did not complain about skin problems . On CARDINAL occasion in DATE the applicant complained of headache . In connection with this , he was examined by a psychiatrist , who confirmed that he had no mental disorders and prescribed him nootropil and vitamins .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the management of ORG , who had put him in the same cell as infected detainees and failed to ensure the compatibility of the conditions of his detention with the minimum standards set forth by domestic law , and had failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint was dismissed . The ORG agreed that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention did not fully satisfy the requirements of domestic law and that there were some omissions on the part of the management . However , it concluded that the management ’s actions did not amount to a criminal offence . ORG did not specify the established omissions of the prison authorities .

On DATE the applicant challenged the aforementioned decision in court under LAW .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim and quashed the impugned decision , because ORG had not provided details of the management ’s omissions .

No further decisions concerning the outcome of the examination of the applicant ’s complaints were submitted by the parties .

There is no information about the examination of the applicant ’s subsequent complaints of CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , which were sent to ORG .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL claims with ORG , seeking compensation for damage to his health and for non - pecuniary damage , which he alleged had been caused by the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS and remand prison IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL .

By decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ORG left the claims pending the awaited rectification of their procedural defects . The applicant was invited to clarify the list of the defendants and the factual circumstances of the alleged violations of his rights .

Later the applicant ’s claims were returned unexamined on the merits , as ORG concluded that he had failed to comply with the court ’s recommendations .

The applicant did not challenge ORG decisions on appeal .


CASE OF BENKŐ AND SOÓSNÉ BENKŐ v. HUNGARY

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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

On DATE she brought an action before the GPE XX / XXI / XXIII ORG , seeking the dissolution of common ownership .

On DATE ORG , acting as a second instance court , adopted a partial judgment in the case .

Pursuant to the applicant ’s petition for review , ORG quashed the partial judgment on DATE and remitted the case to the first instance court .

The case was terminated by ORG on DATE ( service : DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer posted a first communication to the ORG , indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the application . The communication was dated DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)

Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

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

At the time of the events in the present case , the applicant was serving a prison sentence for fraud , imposed by CARDINAL decisions of ORG on DATE and DATE . He was held mainly in GPE and FAC . In DATE he spent DATE in cell no . CARDINAL of ORG . According to the applicant ’s description , the cell was dirty and lacked access to warm water .

On several occasions the applicant was kept in the court ’s detention rooms where the detainees and guards were allowed to smoke . According to the applicant , he was exposed to passive smoking in the GPE detention room on DATE .

According to the information provided by the prison administration and forwarded to ORG , the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL in FAC from DATE to DATE and from DATE . The personal space available to the applicant was QUANTITY . m during the first period of detention and QUANTITY . m during the second period of detention . Disinfection and pest control were carried out CARDINAL times per year and the cell was cleaned DATE by the inmates . The same rules of hygiene applied to the toilets and shower rooms . The cell benefitted from both natural and artificial light and had beds with mattresses , tables , shelves , and a television set . In an annex to the cell there was a toilet space , consisting of CARDINAL partitioned toilet bowls and CARDINAL wash basins . Access to warm water was possible in the common shower room , which contained CARDINAL showers and to which the inmates had access in privacy once a week .

On DATE the applicant was not allowed to vote in the parliamentary elections and , despite his requests for clarifications , the prison authorities gave him no explanations as to whether he was entitled to vote or not . DATE , he informed the ORG about what had happened .

On DATE the applicant was released on probation . He was arrested again on DATE and served the rest of his sentence until DATE .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and currently resides in GPE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant is a LOC national of an NORP ethnic origin .

NORP In DATE , after the inter - ethnic violence in the region of GPE in DATE , the applicant left GPE for GPE , fleeing ethnic - motivated violence .

On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in DATE . On DATE they issued an international search warrant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody in GPE . The NORP authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE the detention measure was lifted and the applicant was released from custody under an obligation not to leave his place of residence .

Pending the completion of the extradition proceedings , the applicant unsuccessfully sought a refugee status , temporary asylum and political asylum in GPE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant ’s extradition . The order mentioned that the NORP authorities provided diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment ; the extradition request did not aim at persecuting the applicant on religious , political grounds or grounds relating to his ethnic origin ; he would benefit from free access by the NORP authorities’ representative in the place of his detention .

The applicant appealed against this decision and advanced an argument that he might be subject to ill - treatment due to his NORP ethnic origin .

On DATE ORG upheld the extradition order . As to the applicant ’s arguments about alleged risk of illtreatment the court concluded that they were unfounded , since the reports provided by the applicant referred to past years , namely DATE , and the opinions of human rights activists were their own subjective opinion not based on real facts .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE the ORG acceded to the applicant ’s request to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination in the first instance .

On DATE ORG quashed the extradition order of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by ORG of LOC and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The extradition order of CARDINAL DATE was thus annulled .

For a summary of relevant international and domestic law and practice see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

For relevant reports on GPE see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .