Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant is a NORP national who was born in GPE and is detained in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was placed in FAC . He alleged that during his time in FAC he had been kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which he had had to share with CARDINAL other inmates . Outdoor exercise had been limited to TIME a day and the applicant had spent the remainder of his time in the cell . Furthermore , the cell had been infected with bed bugs .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC , where he was first accommodated together with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY , then together with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY . He claimed that in both cells the toilet had been separated from the living area only by a curtain . The applicant was allowed to take a TIME shower once DATE .

As of DATE , he was transferred to FAC where he was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY and accommodating CARDINAL inmates including him . Throughout this confinement he had outdoor stays for TIME a day in a yard measuring QUANTITY . He spent the remainder of his time in the cell .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . The cell where he was held measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . It was equipped with a separate toilet . The applicant was allowed to take a TIME - long shower once a week .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in PERSON , where CARDINAL persons were held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME a day .

NORP Since CARDINAL July CARDINAL the applicant has been detained in FAC with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring QUANTITY . The applicant is allowed to move freely outside his cell .

On DATE the NORP Parliament adopted Act No . CX of DATE , amending certain Acts on criminal matters in relation to the judgment adopted by ORG in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( hereinafter , the “ LAW ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This Act was promulgated on DATE and entered into force on DATE . It was aimed at introducing preventive and compensatory remedies in cases of inadequate conditions of detention .

On DATE , the Minister of Justice of GPE addressed to the President of the ORG a letter “ concerning the implementation of the pilot judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ” . The Minister noted that LAW , a complaint alleging conditions of detention in violation of LAW could be presented to the prison governor , who should , as far as practicable , take the necessary actions in order to improve the conditions or counterbalance the injury suffered ( for instance : relocation , increasing the time allowed for visits or the time spent in the open air , and improvement of the sanitary facilities ) . According to the Minister , in view of the progress of the prison capacity expansion programme , there was a “ real prospect ” of finding penal institutions with sufficient capacity . A preventive remedy could , however , be used only while the detention was still ongoing . After release , and within DATE of the termination of the prison sentence , only a compensatory claim could be submitted . This could lead to the granting of a sum calculated on the basis of DATE spent in conditions contrary to LAW , the daily tariff ranging from a minimum of MONEY ( ORG – approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and a maximum of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . The judge must exercise his or her judicial discretion in order to award an amount proportionate to the gravity of the violation found , taking into account , for instance , the absence of toilets separated from the living space in the cell , in addition to a general situation of overcrowding , or to other inadequate conditions of detention . The sum thus determined must be paid within DATE of the decision being served .

NORP The Minister further stated that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL applications for compensation had been lodged with the penal institutions , thus showing the accessibility of the new remedy . Referring to the strict time - limits provided for by LAW , the Minister argued that the remedy also satisfied the requirement of quick adjudication and underlined that the judge responsible for the execution of sentences must provide reasons for his or her decision . As to the amount of compensation , the Minister noted that the NORP legislation adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , DATE ) fixed the sum to be granted at ORG CARDINAL per day of detention in conditions incompatible with the requirements of LAW . Having regard to the burden - bearing capacity and of the economic realities of the CARDINAL countries , the choice of the NORP legislator to fix the DATE tariff at between ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL could be deemed to be reasonable .

NORP The Minister lastly noted that out of CARDINAL cases brought before the judges responsible for the execution of sentences , CARDINAL claims had been adjudicated by DATE , awarding a total amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . Moreover , due to the extension of the prison capacity achieved as part of the action plan , overcrowding in NORP prisons had significantly dropped : whereas in DATE the occupancy level had been PERCENT , in DATE and DATE the respective figures were PERCENT and PERCENT .

In the light of the above , the Minister urged the ORG to find that the preventive and compensatory remedies provided for by LAW were effective and needed to be exhausted in accordance with LAW .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant to indicate whether he had used the remedies provided for by LAW or intended to do so . In his reply of DATE , the applicant stated that he had lodged a claim under the relevant domestic legislation and the proceedings were still pending before ORG .

The DATE Act introduced , inter alia , new sections into LAW . ORG of DATE on the enforcement of punishments , measures , certain coercive measures and confinement for regulatory offences . In so far as relevant , those sections read as follows :

Compensation for conditions of detention violating fundamental rights

Section CARDINAL/A

“ ( CARDINAL ) Convicts and persons detained on other grounds are entitled to compensation for not having been provided with the inmate living space specified in the law and for any other conditions of detention violating the prohibition of torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment , in particular for violations caused by unseparated toilets , and lack of proper ventilation or lighting or heating and disinfection ( henceforth together : conditions of detention violating fundamental rights ) . Compensation shall be awarded for DATE spent in conditions of detention violating fundamental rights . Compensation shall be paid by the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) Under the head specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , no further indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights shall be sought but convicts and persons detained on other grounds may apply to a civil court seeking additional damages exceeding the amount of compensation .

( CARDINAL ) The DATE compensation tariff shall be a minimum of ORG CARDINAL but a maximum of ORG CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) A compensation claim may be made within DATE on which the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights ceased to exist . This time - limit is absolute . For the purposes of this subsection , conditions of detention violating fundamental rights will not be considered to have ceased to exist where those conditions are interrupted for a short period , but for a maximum of DATE , on account of the fact that within the term of imprisonment of the convict or person detained on other grounds the statutory living space has been provided .

( CARDINAL ) A compensation claim may be lodged by a convict or person detained on other grounds or by their counsel or , if the detainee has already been released , by his legal representative . The compensation claim shall be lodged in writing with the penal institution where the detention is being effected or , if the convict or person detained on other grounds has been released , with the penal institution which released him . In the application for compensation the convict or person detained on other grounds shall give a statement as to whether ORG ( henceforth : the ORG ) has obliged the ORG to pay damages to him on account of conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and whether a civil court has already awarded him indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights . If the answer is yes , the detainee shall also state the name of the court and the case number in the application .

( CARDINAL ) Save for inmates undergoing involuntary treatment or temporary involuntary treatment , a further condition for the lodging of such an application for compensation is the prior submission by the convict or person detained on other grounds of a complaint under LAW to the head of the organ responsible for the enforcement of the sentence about the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights . This condition shall be applicable where DATE spent in conditions of detention violating fundamental rights has exceeded CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) . Where conditions of detention violating fundamental rights exist over a longer period of time , a further complaint does not need to be lodged within DATE .. Where the convict or person detained on other grounds could not enforce his right of complaint for reasons beyond his control , it shall not be imputed to him .

( CARDINAL ) It will be possible to satisfy other claims from the compensation awarded only

( a ) up to the amount of a civil claim or of an indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded under a final civil judgment in relation to the offence for the enforcement of which the compensation is awarded , and

( b ) up to the amount of a child - support claim enforced in enforcement proceedings for the collection of child support .

( CARDINAL) Where in the cases specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) the amount of compensation is not enough to satisfy all the claims , first the child - support claim , then the civil claim and the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the offence shall be satisfied in equal proportion .

Section CARDINAL/B

( CARDINAL ) The minister responsible for justice shall make arrangements for the payment of the compensation awarded .

( CARDINAL ) In making the arrangements for the payment of the compensation , the minister responsible for justice shall , from the register kept by the office of ORG , request data on any child - support enforcement proceedings stayed or pending against the convict or person detained on other grounds , as well as the case number and the name of the bailiff with jurisdiction in the case .

( CARDINAL ) Where the data received under subsection ( CARDINAL ) or from the penitentiary judge indicate that enforcement proceedings for the collection of child support or for the satisfaction of a civil claim or for the payment of indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded against the inmate on account of the commission of the offence have been instituted , the minister responsible for justice shall inform the bailiff of the amount of compensation awarded to the debtor and the claims that may be satisfied from the compensation by way of debt collection . In such cases the compensation may , in line with LAW ) , only be paid after the bailiff has taken the necessary enforcement measures for the attachment of the debt .

( CARDINAL ) Where in his decision the penitentiary judge orders that a partly or fully unpaid civil claim or indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the committed offence are to be deducted and paid to the beneficiaries of such claims , the remaining compensation is to be paid to the convict or person detained on other grounds . Where the available data indicate that enforcement proceedings for the collection of child support have been instituted , the compensation may only be paid after the bailiff has , in line with LAW ) , taken the necessary enforcement measures for the attachment of the child support Child support shall be collected primarily from the compensation payable to the convict or person detained on other grounds .

( CARDINAL ) Payment may be effected via bank transfer to the bank account number given by the convict or person detained on other grounds or paid into the bank account of , or in cash to , the beneficiary of the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the offence committed , in accordance with his or her request . Where the convict or person detained on other grounds is still detained , he may request that the compensation be transferred to a deposit account .

( CARDINAL ) The minister responsible for justice may process personal data obtained under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and being related to the enforcement of a child support claim or civil claim or indemnification or damages for a violation of personality rights awarded on account of the offence committed , for DATE from the date of payment of the compensation .

Compensation proceedings to redress damage resulting

from conditions of detention violating fundamental rights

Section CARDINAL/A

( CARDINAL ) A decision on whether compensation is payable to an inmate for damage resulting from conditions of detention violating fundamental rights shall be taken by the penitentiary judge at the request of the inmate or his counsel . A decision by the penitentiary judge may be taken also on the basis of documents .

( CARDINAL ) The penal institution shall transmit the application , together with its opinion on the application , to the penitentiary judge within DATE or , where several penal institutions are affected , within DATE with the specification that if the inmate has lodged a complaint alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights , the penal institution ’s opinion may only be transmitted after the complaint , including an application for judicial review lodged against a decision on relocation , has been determined . A summary of the inmate ’s records containing data on the conditions of detention in the period complained of shall be appended to the opinion .

( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall , ex officio , examine whether the ORG has obliged the ORG to pay damages to the inmate on account of the conditions of his detention violating fundamental rights or whether a civil court has awarded indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights , and if the answer is yes , the penitentiary judge shall obtain the relevant decisions before taking a decision .

( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall evaluate the inmate ’s conditions of detention in their entirety and shall determine the DATE compensation tariff on the basis of the extent of the injury caused . Thereafter , compensation shall be calculated by multiplying the DATE compensation tariff by the time spent in conditions of detention violating fundamental rights .

( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall reject the application on the basis of the documents , without an examination on the merits , where

( a ) the application has been lodged belatedly

( b ) the application has been lodged by a person not entitled to lodge such an application

( c ) the inmate has failed to lodge the complaint as specified in Section CARDINAL/D , or

( d ) in respect of the period indicated in the application , the ORG has obliged the ORG to pay compensation , or a civil court has awarded indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights on account of the conditions of the inmate ’s detention violating fundamental rights .

( CARDINAL ) Where the inmate has been released , proceedings shall be conducted by the penitentiary judge with jurisdiction for the location of the penal institution , but if a separate request to that effect has been made by the inmate or his defence counsel , the penitentiary judge with jurisdiction for the inmate ’s place of domicile or place of residence shall proceed .

Section CARDINAL/B

( CARDINAL ) Where the court that dealt with the criminal case against the inmate has awarded a civil claim to the injured party or his heir or referred the enforcement of the civil claim to another legal avenue , the penitentiary judge shall invite the injured party to submit , within a time - limit of DATE , a statement as to whether the inmate has paid the civil claim awarded to the injured party or has paid DATE if the injured party lodged an action seeking to recover the damage caused by the offence or seeking the payment of damages for infringement of personality rights – the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded by the civil court . If full payment has not been made by the inmate , the statement shall also confirm whether the injured party requests the deduction of the outstanding claim from any compensation that may be awarded to the inmate .

( CARDINAL ) In the case specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , the penitentiary judge shall also invite the injured party to state the precise amount he is claiming and to append any documents in his possession in relation to the civil claim or the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded to him on account of the committed offence . Where the penitentiary judge adjudicates the case on the basis of documents , he shall obtain a statement from the inmate on the payment of the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded against him on account of the committed offence .

( CARDINAL ) If the injured party requests the payment of the outstanding part of the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded to him on account of the committed offence , the penitentiary judge shall request data from the register kept by the office of ORG on any stayed or pending proceedings instituted for the collection of such claims , as well as the case number and the name of the bailiff with jurisdiction in the case .

( CARDINAL ) In the case specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , the time - limit specified in LAW subsection ( CARDINAL)(d ) shall be extended by DATE . Where the invitation to the injured party has not produced any result within DATE , the penitentiary judge shall adjudicate the case by ignoring any outstanding amount of indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the committed offence .

( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall make arrangements for the payment from the compensation amount to the beneficiary of any outstanding civil claim amount or indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the committed offence , where

( a ) the civil claim or the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded to the injured party on account of the committed offence has not yet or not fully been paid by the inmate ,

( b ) no enforcement proceedings have been instituted for the collection of the claims specified in point ( a ) ,

( c ) in examining a defence statement to that effect filed by the inmate or his counsel , the penitentiary judge has established that the limitation period specified in LAW has not yet elapsed .

( CARDINAL ) In the decision the penitentiary judge shall oblige the ORG to pay the compensation and shall invite the ORG to effect the payment within a time - limit of DATE from the service of the decision .

Review of a decision on the measures taken following a complaint

about conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and on relocation

Section CARDINAL/A

( CARDINAL ) An application by the inmate or his counsel for the judicial review of a decision on the measures taken following a complaint about conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and on relocation shall be determined by the penitentiary judge within DATE of the receipt of the application .

( CARDINAL ) If in the review the penitentiary judge finds that the governor of the penal institution has failed to take a measure the penitentiary judge shall , by applying – mutatis mutandis – Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) , instruct the governor of the penal institution to conduct the proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) The costs of the criminal proceedings shall be borne by the ORG .

Complaint about conditions of detention violating fundamental rights

Section CARDINAL/B

( CARDINAL ) The inmate or his counsel may submit a written complaint alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights directly to the governor of the penal institution .

( CARDINAL ) The complaint shall be determined within DATE of its submission . Upon receipt of the complaint , the governor of the penal institution shall , in the event of conditions of detention violating fundamental rights , take the necessary actions to improve the conditions or to counterbalance the injury suffered . With the exceptions specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) below , the governor of the penal institution shall issue a decision setting out the actions to be taken .

( CARDINAL ) Where the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights on account of the lack of statutory inmate living space can not be terminated in the penal institution in issue , the governor of the penal institution shall , with urgency , contact ORG department responsible for detention matters and shall request the inmate ’s relocation to another penal institution capable of guaranteeing the statutory inmate living space .

( CARDINAL ) The head of ORG department responsible for detention matters shall decide on the request within DATE , in a reasoned decision . If the statutory inmate living space can be guaranteed in another penal institution , the head of ORG department responsible for detention matters will designate such a penal institution for serving the term of imprisonment ; otherwise , it shall not issue any decision and shall inform the governor of the penal institution accordingly . In deciding on the inmate ’s relocation , the inmate ’s contact rights shall be taken into consideration .

( CARDINAL ) Where the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights on account of the lack of the statutory inmate living space can be terminated neither within the penal institution in issue , nor by relocating the inmate to another penal institution , the governor of the penal institution shall take action to counterbalance the injury , provided that no such action has yet been taken by him and that the taking of such action does not hamper the performance of tasks , and provided that the conditions thereof are ensured .

( CARDINAL ) The inmate and his defence counsel may apply to the penitentiary judge for a review against action taken under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) above , or for a failure to take action , and if relocation violates the inmate ’s contact rights . The application for review shall have a suspensive effect on the relocation .

Section CARDINAL/A

( CARDINAL ) Where the purposes of the incarceration may be achieved in this way as well , if conditional release is imminent or if conditional release has been excluded , before the prospective date of his release the inmate may be placed in reintegration custody if he consents to being placed in such custody and if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed with criminal negligence . The same applies to a person sentenced for an intentional offence , provided that he

( a ) was not convicted for a violent crime committed against another person specified in Article CARDINAL ) point CARDINAL of LAW ,

( b ) was sentenced to enforceable imprisonment for the first time or is a repeat offender without being a recidivist , and

( c ) is serving a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Reintegration custody shall last

( a ) for a maximum of DATE if the inmate was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence committed with criminal negligence ,

( b ) in cases other than the one specified in point ( a ) , for a maximum of DATE .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL) Where a pre - trial detainee or his counsel has lodged a complaint alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights , the governor of the penal institution shall also append a consent statement by the person authorised to make decisions in respect of the pre - trial detainee to the request made under Section CARDINAL/B(CARDINAL ) for the relocation of the pre - trial detainee to another penal institution . In such cases the complaint shall be determined and a decision made within DATE .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) A compensation claim under LAW , enacted by LAW Act No . ORG of DATE , may also be submitted by a convict or person detained on other grounds

( a ) in respect of whom the injury having resulted from conditions of detention violating fundamental rights ceased to exist within DATE preceding the entry into force of the amendment ,

( b ) who submitted an application to the ORG alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and the application was registered by the ORG before the entry into force of the amendment , except where the inmate submitted his application to the ORG after DATE and by the date of receipt of the application , DATE have elapsed since the termination of the violation .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of subsection ( CARDINAL ) the absolute time - limit specified in LAW CARDINAL ) shall start to run on DATE of the entry into force of this provision . In determining claims submitted under subsection ( CARDINAL ) , Section CARDINAL/A(CARDINAL ) shall not be applicable and the time - limit specified for the proceedings before the penitentiary judge under LAW ) shall be extended by DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Where data are obtained indicating that before the entry into force of the compensation claim provided for in LAW No . CX of DATE , on account of conditions of detention violating fundamental rights

( a ) proceedings were instituted before a civil court , or

( b ) an application was submitted to the ORG and the application was registered by the ORG before the date of the entry into force of the amendment

the penitentiary judge shall suspend the proceedings until the completion of these proceedings or , if there are proceedings pending before the ORG , until notification by the ORG of the referral of the case to national adjudication has been received . ”

At its CARDINALth meeting held on DATE , in the ambit of the execution of the judgments PERSON and Others and PERSON GPE , ORG adopted the following decision ( CM / Del / Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL/HCARDINAL - CARDINAL ; hereinafter , the “ decision of DATE ” ) :

“ The Deputies

NORP welcomed the authorities’ commitment to resolve the problem of prison overcrowding in GPE and noted with interest that the substantive measures taken appear to be showing the first concrete results , in particular a decrease in the rate of overcrowding and a drop in the shortage of prison places ;

As regards individual measures

NORP noted that a number of applicants are still detained in conditions not meeting the minimum standards for personal living space and reminded the authorities of their obligation to rectify the situation by ensuring that all applicants’ conditions of detention are in line with the Convention ; invited them to provide the outstanding information , in particular , on other relevant aspects of the material conditions of detention where the available living space is between CARDINAL and CARDINAL m² per inmate ;

As regards general measures

NORP noted with interest the further extension of the application of “ reintegration custody ” , the facilitation of an increase in the use of house arrest , and the slight decrease in the number of defendants placed in pre - trial detention ; strongly encouraged the authorities further to pursue their efforts in this regard and to find all possible means “ to encourage prosecutors and judges to use as widely as possible alternatives to detention and redirect their criminal policy towards reduced use of imprisonment ” ; invited them to submit updated statistical information on the impact and further promotion of alternative sanctions and the reduction of overcrowding ;

NORP welcomed the fact that , in response to the PERSON and Others pilot judgment , the authorities have introduced both a preventive and a compensatory remedy aimed at guaranteeing genuinely effective redress for Convention violations arising from poor material conditions of detention , which took effect on DATE ; invited them to provide further detailed information ( including statistical data ) on the implementation and functioning of these newly introduced remedies , notably in the light of the monitoring they will undertake in this context , and more concretely on the impact of the preventive remedy on the general problem of prison overcrowding ;

welcomed the information received as regards the other violations concerned by this group and invited the authorities to submit the outstanding information ;

in view of ORG decision to suspend the examination of the similar pending applications until DATE , invited the authorities to provide the information expected by that date , at the latest . ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the applicant filed for divorce and division of matrimonial property . The case was processed at first instance by ORG and ORG ; and at second instance by ORG and the Győr - Sopron - Moson County Regional Court . The procedure ended on DATE .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant concluded an employment contract with a ORG - owned financial institution . His contract was amended in DATE stipulating , in case of ordinary dismissal , severance payment equal to DATE salary and remuneration corresponding to a notice period of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement . Under this agreement , on DATE his former employer paid him , after taxes , a net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , amounting to CARDINAL months’ salary .

Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding ORG CARDINAL ; the income tax and social security contributions already paid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were deducted from the tax payable . Thus , the applicant had to pay an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL as special tax , until DATE .


Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six-month period);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , where he apparently moved from GPE in DATE .

At TIME on DATE he was arrested in GPE while breaking into cars with a view to stealing items from them . He was taken to ORG and placed under police detention . According to the applicant , he was not put in a cell , but handcuffed to a bench in the station ’s corridor .

According to the applicant , throughout the whole time that he spent in the police station he was not given any food or drink , allowed to go to the toilet , or allowed to use a telephone . He was visited by an ex officio lawyer appointed for him by the authorities . However , the lawyer spoke no NORP and very little LANGUAGE – a language that the applicant is apparently familiar with DATE and did not explain to him anything about the procedure in his case .

In TIME DATE the applicant was taken to a hospital for a medical examination , and then , at QUANTITY the same day , taken to a pre - trial detention facility in GPE .

It appears that DATE , or one of DATE , the applicant was brought before GPE with a view to a decision on whether he should be remanded in detention , and that it was decided that he should remain in custody pending trial . A subsequent request for release apparently made by his counsel in DATE was rejected as well .

According to the applicant , upon his arrival in the pre - trial detention facility on TIME DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was given a dirty mattress , pillow and blanket , but no bedlinen . Since he had arrived in the facility after suppertime , he could not eat or drink anything until lunchtime the following day , DATE .

According to the applicant , the cell in which he had been placed had been dirty , cold , poorly ventilated , infested with cockroaches , overcrowded , and with a toilet which was not properly separated from the rest of the cell .

According to the applicant , he was not able to maintain his personal hygiene , as he was not provided with toilet paper or other toiletries , and had had no money to purchase them . As a result , it had been impossible for him to go to the shower for DATE . On DATE of his stay in the facility , he had seen spots erupt on his skin and had asked to be examined by a medical doctor . The doctor had come to see him DATE , and had only examined him from a distance , without entering the cell . On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant was given a blood test which revealed that he had a staphylococcus infection . He was given antibiotics for it but was not taken to a hospital .

According to the applicant , food had also been so poor and served so unhygienically that he had lost QUANTITY during his stay in the detention facility . The space for out - of - cell exercise had also been so small that on many occasions he had chosen not to take his daily exercise .

In the detention facility , there was a cardphone which inmates could use to call outside numbers . It was located in the space where they could take their DATE TIME out - of - cell exercise . Since it had to be shared among them , each inmate had TIME to use it . As the applicant had had no money on him when arrested , he could not however purchase a phonecard . With the help of a co - detainee who spoke some LANGUAGE , about two weeks after his arrival in the facility he managed to obtain TIME of call time free of charge , and on DATE contacted the consulate of GPE in GPE . The consulate immediately informed the applicant ’s NORP girlfriend , a NORP friend of his and his parents , who resided in GPE , that he had been arrested and detained , and the consul came to visit him . The same day the applicant ’s mother , who lived in GPE , wired money to the consul so that she could purchase food and clothes for the applicant . The consulate also arranged for a lawyer to represent the applicant in the criminal case against him .

With the money that he received via the consulate , the applicant was able to purchase a phonecard . According to him , he had made many requests to that effect in DATE after DATE , which the Government had not provided . The Government insisted that they had made available to the ORG all documents in the applicant ’s detention file . They submitted a declaration by him dated DATE whereby he had asked the detention facility ’s head to issue him a phonecard preloaded with MONEY of credit and , as required under the relevant regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had submitted for approval a list of the persons – his NORP girlfriend , a NORP friend , his lawyer , and his mother and father in GPE – whom he wished to call . The same day the facility ’s head approved the list . The applicant was apparently able to call his mother in GPE for the first time DATE , on DATE .

According to the applicant , the relevant order ( see paragraph DATE below ) had provided that detainees could purchase phonecards or recharge them twice a month . The Government did not comment on that point or submit a copy of the order . According to the official form used by the applicant to make his above - mentioned declaration , phonecards could be recharged once a month . The applicant alleged that the facility ’s staff had often not complied with the recharging schedule and that on CARDINAL occasion he had been unable to recharge his phonecard for DATE . He did not provide further details in that respect , but from the documents submitted by him it appears that DATE and DATE , DATE , he had not spoken on the telephone to his mother in GPE .

Detainees in the facility could get CARDINAL visits a month , each lasting up to TIME . According to the Government , the applicant had received such visits on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE . However , on CARDINAL occasion on DATE the applicant ’s NORP girlfriend , who had come to visit him , was turned away with the explanation that DATE he had been moved to a different wing , detainees in which could be visited on another date according to the schedule of visits . She was apparently able to visit him DATE . It appears that a NORP friend of the applicant who had also come to visit him on DATE was likewise turned away .

According to the Government , during his stay in the detention facility the applicant had been visited by his lawyer on CARDINAL occasions in DATE , and by consular staff on CARDINAL occasions . He had also received parcels with food and other items on CARDINAL occasions .

NORP Throughout his stay in the detention facility , the applicant was able to correspond with his parents in GPE with letters passed via his lawyer or the staff of the consulate of GPE in GPE .

On DATE the applicant and the prosecution entered into an agreement whereby he pleaded guilty and accepted to serve a sentence of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . DATE the Sofia ORG approved the agreement , and DATE , DATE , the applicant was moved to FAC . Since his pre - trial detention was taken into account in calculating the amount of time that he had to serve under his sentence of imprisonment , he spent there DATE , until DATE , when he was released . According to the applicant , conditions in FAC were nearly identical to , or even worse than , those in the detention facility .

NORP The applicant ’s parents came from GPE to GPE to see him on DATE , DATE after his release . It appears that they could not do so earlier because it was not possible for his mother to take leave from work .


CASE OF HIT D.D. NOVA GORICA v. SLOVENIA

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

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Martens;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The NORP - based applicant company operates gaming and entertainment centres .

On DATE , the applicant company ’s then new managing director instituted disciplinary proceedings against CARDINAL of its employees , ORG , in respect of the disciplinary offence of excessive and irresponsible use of the company ’s funds . The new managing director had been informed about the alleged offence DATE . On DATE the disciplinary board terminated ORG ’s employment on the grounds that she had seriously breached her employment obligations . An appeal lodged by ORG against that decision was dismissed . On DATE ORG brought a claim before ORG , requesting that the termination of her employment be declared null and void . She alleged , inter alia , that the disciplinary proceedings against her were time - barred .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s request . Having considered that the applicant company ’s former managing director had not had sufficient knowledge of the acts constituting the disciplinary offence , ORG concluded that the DATE time - limit for the institution of disciplinary proceedings had started to run from the date on which ORG ’s disciplinary offences had been discovered by the new management of the applicant company . The court therefore held that disciplinary proceedings had not been time - barred . ORG appealed against the judgment .

On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL judges , which included judge PERSON , upheld ORG ’s appeal and ordered the applicant company to reinstate her . Relying on a statement made by the applicant company ’s former managing director , it concluded that he had had sufficient knowledge of ORG ’s actions to be able to institute disciplinary proceedings against her if he had considered that to be necessary . Accordingly , the higher court held that the disciplinary proceedings against ORG had in fact been time - barred . The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant company ’s appeal on points of law , as the higher court had established the facts differently from the first - instance court without having conducted an oral hearing . ORG therefore found that the adversarial principle had been breached in the appeal proceedings and set aside the second - instance judgment . The case was remitted to ORG for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel presided by judge PERSON , held that the facts which had affected the expiry of the statutory limitation period for commencing disciplinary proceedings had not been duly established , and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .

On DATE the ORG rendered an interim judgment , finding again that the disciplinary proceedings had not been time - barred and thus dismissing ORG ’s request for annulment of the decision to terminate her employment . ORG appealed against the judgment .

On DATE the Higher ORG again established quite the opposite , namely that the disciplinary proceedings had been time - barred , and upheld ORG ’s appeal . Judge PERSON did not take part in the proceedings . The applicant company appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG again upheld the applicant company ’s appeal on the grounds that the adversarial principle had been breached in the appeal proceedings . The case was remitted for fresh consideration to ORG , sitting in a panel composed of different judges .

On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG found that the facts of the case had still not been sufficiently established , and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .

On DATE the ORG found , in its third consideration of the case , that the disciplinary proceedings had been time - barred , as the former managing director had been fully informed about ORG ’s actions that had constituted the disciplinary offence . Accordingly , the court granted ORG claim and declared the termination of her employment null and void . The decision on her compensation claim against the applicant company was postponed . Both parties appealed .

On DATE the Higher ORG upheld the appeal lodged by ORG and dismissed the applicant company ’s appeal in which it contended , inter alia , that the statements made by the former managing director of the applicant company in the later stages of the proceedings had conflicted with his earlier accounts of the facts and had obviously been made in order to exculpate ORG , with whom he had close personal ties .

The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company ’s appeal and reaffirmed the judgment of the lower courts that the disciplinary proceedings had been time - barred .

On DATE the applicant company , represented by a lawyer , lodged a constitutional appeal alleging , inter alia , that in the determination of whether disciplinary proceedings against ORG had been time - barred , the principle of equality of arms had been breached . In addition , the applicant company contended that the labour courts’ position regarding the limitation period for commencing disciplinary proceedings in the particular circumstances at issue had contravened its free economic initiative enshrined in the LAW . It argued that if the former managing director had known about ORG ’s actions , that in itself had constituted a disciplinary offence and should not have been interpreted in her favour . On CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant company that its constitutional appeal had been assigned to judge rapporteur PERSON

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided on ORG ’s claim for compensation for the unlawful termination of her employment . It ordered the applicant company to pay ORG compensation for lost wages and various benefits for the period when she had not been employed or had been paid a lower salary by other employers . The remainder of ORG claim was dismissed .

On DATE ORG , in a CARDINAL - judge panel in charge of the examination of constitutional appeals in the field of administrative law , which included judge PERSON , refused to accept the applicant company ’s constitutional appeal for consideration , stating that its fundamental rights and freedoms had not been violated . The decision , which included the information on the composition of the panel , was taken in camera and without the attendance of the applicant company or the respondent party .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW on the disqualification of judges read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In deciding on an individual case , ORG may disqualify a ORG judge by applying , mutatis mutandis , the reasons for disqualification in court proceedings .

“ Immediately upon a ORG judge learning of any reason for his disqualification as referred to in the preceding article , he must stop working on the case and notify the President of ORG of such . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A motion for disqualification may be submitted by the participants in the proceedings until the beginning of the public hearing , if such hearing is scheduled , or respectively until DATE closed session of ORG at which the case is to be decided . The motion must include a statement of reasons .

The relevant provisions of LAW on this issue , applicable to the proceedings before ORG , read as follows :

“ A judge or a lay judge shall be prohibited from exercising judicial functions :

( CARDINAL ) if he or she participated in the same proceedings before a lower court ... ”

“ Immediately after learning of the existence of any ground for disqualification under clauses CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the preceding Article , the judge or lay judge shall discontinue forthwith any activity in the proceedings and shall notify thereupon the president of the court , who shall appoint a substitute judge or lay judge .

“ The disqualification of a judge may also be requested by the parties .

A party shall be required to bring a motion to disqualify a judge or a lay judge immediately after learning of any grounds for disqualification and not later than before the end of the hearing before the competent court or , if there is no hearing , before the judgment is passed .

ORG is composed of CARDINAL judges . In the constitutional appeal proceedings , the admissibility , and in cases involving well - established case - law also the merits , of individual cases are considered by CARDINAL panels of CARDINAL judges each . Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of ORG , information regarding the division of work by areas between the civil , criminal and administrative panels and their respective composition is accessible on the court ’s website . It is also included in the “ Work Schedule of the Constitutional Court ” published twice DATE , for the autumn and spring terms , in ORG . The work schedule includes the names of the judges who sit in the individual panels , as well as the names of the substitute judges designated to replace individual members of the CARDINAL panels in the event of their absence or disqualification . According to the court ’s Work Schedule , the administrative panel adjudicates on , inter alia , constitutional appeals against individual acts issued in labour dispute proceedings .


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

The first applicant is Mr PERSON , the second applicant is his wife , PERSON , and the third applicant is their son , Mr PERSON . They are nationals of GPE and GPE and were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They are currently in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicants applied for asylum in GPE . They submitted essentially that the third applicant could not receive the necessary neuropediatric care in their home town , Bihać , in GPE . They submitted that he suffered from epilepsy and had issues with his head and legs . Up until DATE there had been a specialist physician in Bihać but after that time he had had to go to PERSON for health care . No physician in the country had been willing to prescribe medicine as there was no specialist in their home town to issue a certificate . There was also no physiotherapy available in GPE . Moreover , the third applicant had been bullied and humiliated because of his handicap and , on CARDINAL occasion , the second applicant had been threatened when she had wanted to stay with the third applicant at a hospital . The first applicant also alleged that on CARDINAL occasion in PERSON he had been assaulted and the windshield of his car had been smashed because he was a NORP . The applicants submitted their passports and a medical certificate concerning the third applicant .

On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected their applications . Firstly , it found that the applicants could turn to the domestic authorities for protection if they were subjected to threats or ill - treatment by private individuals in the future . The ORG further noted that according to the medical certificate the third applicant had difficulties with his DATE routines and that , according to his mother , he had been having epileptic attacks since he was DATE . He received medication and the health - care authorities were examining whether he suffered from a developmental disorder . The Agency concluded that the third applicant ’s health conditions were not serious enough to grant him a residence permit . He had received health care and medication in PERSON , which was part of GPE , and there was no indication that it would not be possible for him to receive health care in his home country in the future . The applicants’ applications were therefore rejected and their expulsion to GPE was ordered .

The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining their claims and adding that the third applicant suffered from several disabilities for which he required regular care to manage his daily life . The measures which had been put in place in GPE were beneficial to him .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , upholding the reasoning of ORG . It noted that according to the available country information , the family could rely on the protection of the authorities in their home country . The court further observed that the third applicant suffered from epilepsy , kyphosis , discreet scoliosis , cerebral palsy and a moderately difficult mental development disorder for which he was in need of medical treatment and constant supervision and care . However , his condition was not life - threatening and he had lived with his condition for DATE in his home country where he had received specialist medical treatment and care .

Upon further appeal by the applicants , ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal on DATE .

ORG , the applicants requested that the ORG stay the enforcement of the expulsion order as there were impediments due to the third applicant ’s health problems , the lack of special schools in GPE and the fact that his sister lived in GPE . Several medical certificates were submitted which , inter alia , stated that in DATE the third applicant had undergone orthopaedic surgery which required DATE of rehabilitation . If the rehabilitation were to be interrupted , he would run the risk of not regaining the ability to walk , which he had been able to do prior to the surgery .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants temporary residence permits for DATE . It held that there were temporary impediments to the applicants’ expulsion due to the third applicant ’s age , his need for rehabilitation after the surgery and the consequences for his health if the rehabilitation were to be interrupted . It further noted that if the third applicant needed additional rehabilitation after DATE , he could submit a new application for a further stay of enforcement of the expulsion order .

In DATE the applicants submitted a new request to ORG to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order . They stated that the third applicant was in need of further surgery and extensive and long - lasting rehabilitation owing to his kyphosis . They relied on additional medical certificates which , inter alia , indicated that the third applicant ’s kyphosis had worsened and that he was deemed to be in need of surgery in DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the request . It found that it had not been shown that the third applicant ’s health condition was of such a nature that it would not be possible to enforce the expulsion order . The ORG noted that the third applicant had become an adult and consequently the more generous rule applicable to children , which had previously been applied to him , was no longer applicable . Moreover , it observed that the medical certificates did not support the conclusion that the third applicant ’s condition was acute , that he was in immediate need of additional surgery or that the medical care in question could be expected to lead to a substantial and permanent improvement in his condition or be of a life - saving nature . Furthermore , the previous rehabilitation , after the surgery in DATE , was deemed to have been completed . The ORG therefore concluded that the third applicant ’s health condition could not be considered as being so extremely serious that it would be unreasonable to enforce the expulsion order against him .

ORG , the applicants again renewed their request for a stay of the enforcement of the expulsion order . They submitted more medical documents , including CARDINAL from a physician in GPE and GPE stating that the third applicant ’s case was complicated and that it would not be possible to perform all the surgery he needed there owing to his health complications .

On DATE ORG rejected the request , with essentially the same reasoning as in its previous decision . It noted that the medical document from the physician in GPE did not show that the third applicant had no possibility to receive the necessary health care in his home country .

Another request by the applicants for a stay of enforcement of the expulsion order was rejected by ORG on DATE , with essentially the same reasoning as in its previous decisions .

On DATE the applicants lodged their application with the ORG and requested that it apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On CARDINAL August DATE the duty judge rejected the request for interim measures .

The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( Utlänningslagen , GPE ) . It defines the conditions under which an alien can be deported or expelled from the country , as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of such decisions .

LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW sets out that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE . According to LAW , section CARDINAL , the term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on the grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , a permit may nevertheless be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen ömmande omständigheter ) as to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . During this assessment , special consideration should be given to , inter alia , the alien ’s state of health . According to the preparatory works ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness may be a reason to grant a residence permit in GPE . However , regard must be had to whether it is reasonable that the required care is provided in GPE or whether adequate care can be provided in the alien ’s country of origin . Moreover , the care provided in GPE must be expected to lead to an evident and enduring improvement in the alien ’s health or be necessary for his or her survival .

According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This is the case where new circumstances have emerged which indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under this criterion , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

Domestic laws on health care ( published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , and in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) provide for a right to health care , on an equal basis , to persons with disabilities , and provide for specific forms of health care for such persons .

As concerns social protection , domestic laws provide for the preferential employment of persons with disabilities , professional rehabilitation , as well as training and the employment of individuals with disabilities and a lowered work capacity . Moreover , it enables persons with disabilities to obtain financial and material support for the purpose of equal opportunities , including the right to the care and assistance of others for persons with the most serious forms of disability , or persons who need assistance with undertaking their basic life needs ( see the PERSON on professional rehabilitation and employment of individuals with a disability , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL and in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; the PERSON on mediation in employment and the social security of unemployed individuals , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; the PERSON on mediation in employment and on rights during unemployment , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; the PERSON on the foundations of social protection , the protection of civilian victims of war and the protection of families with children , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and the PERSON on social protection , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .

Legislation relating to education contains principles on the prohibition of discrimination of persons with disabilities and on the provision of equal opportunities for education through inclusive education or the establishment of special institutions ( see , for example , LAW on pre - school upbringing and education in GPE , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; LAW on elementary and high school education in GPE , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and LAW on higher education in GPE , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are the parents of Mr GPE , who was an engineer working for Aselsan , a defence contractor that produces technology for ORG .

On DATE , at TIME , Mr ORG wife informed the police that her husband had been missing since TIME .

On DATE , at TIME , the mayor of Aydıncık village , in the district of ORG , in GPE , informed the gendarmerie that there was a car in the vicinity of the cemetery of the village . When the gendarmerie arrived at the scene at TIME , they found ORG dead body in his car .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant started eviction proceedings against CARDINAL tenants before ORG ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the court ordered their eviction and ordered the tenants to pay MONEY ( ORG ) for rent arrears .

On DATE the applicant started enforcement proceedings .

DATE the court ordered the seizure ( penhora ) of CARDINAL of CARDINAL of the tenant ’s income ( executado ) . The payment of the debt began in DATE .

Meanwhile , the tenant had asked the court to reduce the deducted amount to CARDINAL of his salary . The court ordered that reduction on DATE .

The payments stopped on DATE , when the tenant became unemployed .

DATE and DATE the enforcement solicitor ( solicitador de execução ) tried to find attachable assets .

NORP In DATE the parties made an agreement according to which the debtor ’s wife would continue to pay the arrears in instalments , which she did for DATE .

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


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants , GPE ( “ the first applicant ” ) and GPE ( “ the second applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second applicant is the mother of the first applicant and lodged the application with the ORG on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter .

The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The second applicant was married to the first applicant ’s father , PERSON who is a police officer . When the first applicant was DATE , the second applicant left her husband because of what she considered to be unacceptable behaviour on his part . She took their daughter with her .

Their marriage was dissolved on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG granted GPE contact rights . These did not include TIME stays .

DATE , when the first applicant was DATE , the second applicant started noticing certain changes in the child ’s behaviour . At first , the second applicant was puzzled by these changes and then she started to worry . Gradually , the changes in the first applicant ’s behaviour became more apparent especially after she had visited her father . In particular , the first applicant sought to kiss her mother on the mouth using her tongue . Every time the mother tried to discourage the child from doing so , the first applicant responded by telling her mother that the reason for doing this was to show her love and affection towards her . For example she would say : “ Mum you should not be shy because I love you ” .

On or DATE the father , whilst exercising his contact rights , took the first applicant to his lodgings , a small room next to his GPE house . DATE the second applicant was told by his parents that GPE had spent DATE with the child locked up . The second applicant called PERSON on his mobile phone numerous times but he would not answer . PERSON returned the first applicant that TIME . The first applicant started behaving in an alarming manner , namely in a sexual manner . In particular the second applicant had bathed her daughter , put her to bed and sat beside her in order to read her a TIME story . Then , the first applicant started licking her mother ’s shoulder . When the second applicant disapproved of it , the first applicant told her that this was exactly what the father did to her . The second applicant called her own mother immediately to the bedroom and in her presence told the first applicant to show her the way her father licked her . The first applicant then showed the second applicant and her grandmother how the father licked her body . She told them that her father licked her breasts , legs and genitals . She later told her grandmother that her father licked her because she liked it .

On DATE the second applicant filed a complaint with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) against GPE for molesting their daughter . The welfare officer informed her of the procedures , the need to immediately report the incident to the police and to refer the child for a psychological and medical examination .

On DATE the welfare officer reported the matter to ORG and to ORG . With the second applicant ’s consent , a meeting was arranged for the applicants with a government clinical psychologist on DATE .

NORP In or about the same period the second applicant observed that her daughter displayed the same sexual behaviour several times especially when playing . In particular , when playing with her favourite doll the first applicant would kiss the doll on the mouth , lick and kiss the doll ’s body , and more specifically the breasts and the area of the genitals . Furthermore , at about the same time , the second applicant was informed by the teacher at the nursery school that the first applicant was behaving strangely and stubbornly refused to allow any of the staff to touch her when trying to change her nappies after her TIME nap .

NORP On DATE the second applicant chose to meet with a private child psychiatrist PERSON According to the applicants and the subsequent report of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) this meeting was arranged because there was a delay of DATE in securing the approval for an examination by a government doctor . As a result , the applicants did not meet with the government clinical psychologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . From the documents in the file it appears that the involvement of CARDINAL experts was not considered advisable by ORG .

DATE PERSON met with Y.Y and on DATE she also had her first meeting with the first applicant with GPE ’s consent . CARDINAL more sessions were held on CARDINAL and DATE which were also attended by a clinical psychologist , PERSON The latter prepared a statement about what had occurred during the examination and , in particular , how the child had expressed herself to E.D. In this statement PERSON explained that it would be against professional ethics to take a position on the matter as she had not met with the parents or carried out an examination herself .

On DATE E.D. informed the second applicant that the examination had shown that PERSON had sexually molested the first applicant . She also informed ORG .

On DATE , immediately after receiving this information , the second applicant filed a complaint of sexual molestation against GPE at FAC . E.D. also gave to the police on DATE a statement together with her findings .

The second applicant then lodged an application with ORG seeking to terminate any kind of communication between GPE and the first applicant . She also applied for an interim order to suspend the court ’s order of DATE , which gave him contact rights pending the examination of the main application and/or until a new order by the court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The interim order was granted on DATE . It appears that this became final on DATE .

The applicants claimed that the authorities did not also apply themselves for a court order to keep GPE away from the first applicant as they normally did in cases of such a nature .

E.D. continued her meetings with the applicants .

In the meantime , GPE made a request to ORG to have the first applicant examined by a government psychologist . By a letter dated DATE , the lawyers representing the applicants at the time informed ORG that although his request had been made at a very late stage and despite the fact that this delay would have a negative effect on the first applicant ’s health , they would suggest to the second applicant that she should agree , assuming the examination would be carried out as soon as possible . They requested that ORG keep them informed of any developments .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE addressed to ORG , the applicants’ lawyers expressed their concern about the slow pace at which the case was being investigated and , in particular , the delay in the examination of the first applicant by a government doctor and the harmful psychological repercussions a delayed examination would have on her . They requested that arrangements be made as soon as possible for the examination in order to minimise the effects on the first applicant . They also noted that GPE had disappeared from the first applicant ’s life despite recommendations that he meet with her in the presence of a welfare officer . They requested that appropriate measures be taken by ORG in this respect .

DATE the applicants’ lawyers called FAC as well as the police headquarters several times in order to find out if there were any developments in relation to the second applicant ’s complaint and whether the police had taken any steps to examine the matter .

After the second applicant filed her complaint with the police , GPE did not see the first applicant until DATE . On DATE , the first applicant met her father at ORG in the presence of a welfare officer and ORG This meeting had been requested by ORG as the first applicant had reacted strongly to the absence of her father .

On DATE GPE went to the nursery school and , in the presence of all the children , including the first applicant , verbally abused the second applicant .

Following this incident GPE did not make any attempt to communicate with the applicants .

By a letter dated DATE , the applicants’ lawyers requested the Chief of Police to inform them of any developments in the case . They requested a prompt response in view of the seriousness of the offence complained of , the time that had elapsed from the day the complaint had been made and the particularly young age of the child .

By a letter dated DATE , the Chief of Police informed them that he would be in touch soon .

On DATE E.D. prepared a relevant report on the first applicant containing her findings and conclusions .

By a letter dated DATE , the applicants’ lawyers sent ORG ’s report to the Attorney - General to be examined along with the other evidence and statements already in his possession . The report was sent on DATE to ORG and the Chief of Police .

On DATE the case - file was sent to the GPE Police headquarters by the Attorney - General ’s office with instructions that additional statements be taken from , inter alia , Y.Y , that a video recorded statement be taken from the first applicant and that she be referred to a government doctor for an examination .

By a letter dated DATE , the applicants’ lawyers complained to the Attorney - General about the procedure that had been followed in the case . They informed the Attorney - General that the second applicant , after having consulted with the child psychiatrist who was seeing the first applicant since DATE , had decided not to give her consent to such statement and examination for a number of reasons , including the following :

- video recorded statements were recommended in cases involving older persons who had the ability to develop a dialogue through the interrogation procedure ;

- because of the nature of the offence the procedure should have been carried out immediately , not after DATE had passed , and only by an expert child psychologist or child psychiatrist ;

-the examination of the child by the child psychiatrist at the material time was done by means of play , as was done in this type of cases , with the help of anatomical dolls . It was through this process that the psychiatrist concluded that the offence in question was committed by the father . The specialist , after DATE , had helped the child to forget and also to accept the absence of her father in her life . The child no longer reacted negatively and had stopped referring to her father . Reverting to the subject at this stage would traumatise her and lead to regression and was thus not recommended by experts ;

-the investigation authorities had had the opportunity to take a statement from the suspect from the very beginning but had unjustifiably omitted to do so . This gave rise to reasonable suspicion that a deliberate effort had been made to cover up the whole matter ;

-the report of the child psychiatrist had been communicated to the office of the Attorney - General , ORG and ORG . As mentioned by the child psychiatrist , her meetings with the child at the material time , had been carried out in the presence of a witness , a practice followed in such cases by reason of their nature and the very young age of the victims . This fact was mentioned in the child psychiatrist ’s statement to the police ;

- the police authorities had not yet taken a statement from the clinical psychologist PERSON nor had they sought a restraining order against the father pursuant to the relevant domestic law ;

- the second applicant had agreed to take the child to be examined by a doctor following the authorities’ suggestion . However , following the unjustified delay on the part of the authorities to fix an appointment for the examination , the second applicant appointed a private specialist after having obtained the father ’s consent . The father had not , at that point in time , made any attempt to have the child examined by a private or government doctor .

At the end of the letter the applicants’ lawyers requested a meeting with the Attorney - General as soon as possible .

By a letter dated DATE , the Attorney - General informed the applicants’ lawyers that he considered that a meeting would serve no purpose . He also agreed that there had possibly been remissness on the part of the investigating authorities in the investigation of the case and that a note of criticism had been sent to them . If the case , however , was to be taken to court it was necessary to obtain the required evidence by a video recorded statement of the child with the mother ’s consent , to have the child examined by a specialist doctor and that the further actions the police asked of them should be taken .

In their reply dated DATE , the applicants’ lawyers disagreed with the Attorney - General and stressed that the case should have been taken to the domestic courts DATE . The authorities should have taken a video recorded statement from the child at the time as well as a statement from the suspect in respect of the offences . The lawyers repeated the position taken in their previous letter and noted that the well - being and the interest of the first applicant were incompatible with the requests now made by the authorities . In their view the taking of a video recorded statement was not a prerequisite for the criminal prosecution of the suspect . There was ample evidence before the Attorney - General and any more delay in the prosecution of GPE was against both the interests of the child and the interests of justice . They asked once more for a meeting in the presence of ORG , as she was the only specialist who had examined the first applicant , since neither the investigating authorities nor the suspect sought to have the minor examined by a third person .

By a letter dated DATE , the applicants’ lawyers submitted a detailed complaint to the Commissioner for Children ’s Rights ( “ the Commissioner ” ) of a violation of the applicants’ rights as a result of the undue delay and the negligence on the part of the authorities to carry out a proper investigation of the case in breach of relevant domestic laws . They requested the Commissioner to take the necessary measures for the protection of the first applicant ’s rights .

By a letter dated DATE , the Commissioner replied that she had requested ORG to inform her of the actions taken by ORG following the complaint made about the sexual molestation of the child , with specific questions concerning the investigation of the complaint , the cooperation / coordination with other services involved , the taking of a statement by the police , the direct referral of the child for an evaluation and for psychotherapeutic help to ORG . She had also requested the views of ORG concerning the Attorney - General ’s request for a video recorded statement from the first applicant in relation to the sexual molestation after DATE had elapsed and a briefing of how ORG were intending to proceed .

The Commissioner informed the applicants’ lawyers that upon receiving the replies from the relevant authorities she would examine the case and decide whether the appropriate measures had been taken in the case in order to secure the child ’s rights and whether the procedures and practices followed in this kind of case complied with the provisions of ORG . In the event she discerned any violations , she would proceed to make the necessary recommendations with the aim of ending the violations and to ensuring that practices were adopted that fully secured the child ’s rights .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the applicants’ lawyers re - contacted the Attorney - General , because they had not received a reply concerning their request for a meeting in the presence of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the Commissioner informed the ORG lawyers that she had received a reply from the Minister of ORG and had written to the Chief of Police with a number of questions relating to the handling of the case .

On DATE ORG issued an interim order granting custody of the first applicant to the second applicant pending the proceedings . The order was to be reviewed on DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the office of the Attorney - General informed the applicants’ lawyers that following an examination of the case , there was no adequate evidence in the case - file to substantiate their claims before a court .

By a letter dated DATE the Commissioner informed the applicants’ lawyers that the Chief of Police had informed her that a video recorded statement had not been taken due to the second applicant ’s negative stance and that the Attorney - General had given instructions not to institute criminal proceedings because of lack of evidence . She had written in reply to the Chief of Police noting the ORG ’s obligations to secure the child ’s rights and that in this case the competent authorities had not done so . She had requested specific information about the procedures and practices in the present case as well as in other similar cases . This included questions concerning the decision of the Attorney - General .

In the meantime the applicants appointed new lawyers to represent them before the domestic authorities .

By a letter dated DATE , the applicants’ new lawyers , referring to the decision not to prosecute GPE due to insufficient evidence , sent to the Attorney - General a written affirmation by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that she had attended as a witness the examination of the first applicant by ORG and the Commissioner ’s letter of DATE . In the letter , they also emphasised that , according to the case - law , children against whom this kind of offences were committed , did not constitute “ exhibits ” to be given for examination or inspection by the defence . This was particularly so when the examination or the taking of a video recorded statement had not been promptly made but , as in the present case , was sought to be taken DATE ; a delay that would cause the child a new traumatic experience without , however , any significant result . They stated that they were certain that criminal proceedings against GPE could be instituted on the basis of the evidence of PERSON , the corroborative evidence of PERSON and that of the second applicant as well as other circumstantial evidence .

It appears that another letter was sent by the Commissioner to the Chief of Police on DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicants’ lawyers wrote to the Commissioner noting that they had not received any news as to whether the Chief of Police had replied to her above - mentioned letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They observed that the ORG had failed to protect the rights of children although it had committed itself to doing so through the office of Commissioner . They reminded the Commissioner of the fact that the police officers who were responsible for investigating the complaint had not carried out their duties properly and that their mistakes and omissions had determined the course and fate of the case . The Attorney - General had refused to prosecute the suspect because of “ insufficient evidence ” in the file of the case . The insufficiency of the evidence was due to the wrong way the police force had dealt with the case . The lawyers reminded the Commissioner that the file of the case had been sent to the police authorities DATE , with instructions to take statements from certain persons including GPE At about the same time ORG had asked for the second applicant ’s consent for the taking of a video recorded statement from DATE child . After consulting ORG , the second applicant had not consented to the above giving a number of reasons , including the damaging effect a statement would have on the first applicant ’s psychological state . The last letter sent by the lawyers to the Attorney - General containing their request for re - examination of the case had remained unanswered . Unfortunately the Attorney - General ’s decision not to prosecute GPE , had been interpreted by the welfare officers as meaning that the complaint was unfounded . As a result , in the proceedings before ORG , they had sought to restore the communication of the minor with the father despite the scientific findings of ORG to the contrary . They pointed out in this respect that ORG had instructed ORG to appoint , with the consent of both parents , a child psychiatrist . The Director of ORG of ORG was appointed . For this purpose , he was then called by ORG to help the court by evaluating the current state of the minor without examining the child in relation to the alleged sexual molesting because of the long time that had passed . It was agreed in court that she should only examine the present psychological state of the first applicant , her development , including her emotional development , in general , bearing in mind her age . ORG , however , in a letter addressed to the above child psychiatrist had told her to examine the current state of the minor with the purpose of reinstating communication with the father and suggested that she ignore , in making her assessment , the allegations of sexual molestation as no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the father . They ended the letter by again requesting the Commissioner to intervene and to investigate the matter through the police , the Attorney - General ’s office and ORG before more damage was done .

The Commissioner replied to the above letter on DATE . In this she set out the steps she had taken in the case and the information that had come to her through correspondence with the authorities such as the Minister of ORG and the Chief of Police . She concluded with the following :

( a ) ORG had immediately taken all necessary steps for investigating the case and had continuously co - operated with all the other authorities involved .

( b ) The procedures followed by the authorities had as a criterion the child ’s interests ; in the present case it appeared that the young age of the child and the refusal of the second expert PERSON to give a statement to the police or submit a report had played a decisive role in the case . PERSON had informed the police authorities that she was unable to give an opinion and requested not to be contacted again about this issue . The absence of corroborative evidence from her resulted in the lack of adequate and reliable evidence which led to the non - prosecution of the father . The young age of the child , both at the initial and subsequent stages of the investigation , did not allow for the taking of a video recorded statement . International bibliography indicated that information taken during interviews from children aged DATE is confusing and thus it is difficult for experts to reach safe conclusions . Even though it was not possible to determine with certainty whether the child had been sexually molested by her father , so that the case did not lead to criminal proceedings , the Commissioner considered that priority must be given to the protection of the child through cooperation between the child and the other members of her family with the appropriate services . The Commissioner pointed out that the psychosocial and emotional development of children in respect of whom there was an allegation that they had been subjected to sexual and/or psychological abuse by CARDINAL of their parents , was usually negatively affected . For this reason , it was necessary to give priority to proper professional intervention with the appropriate psychotherapeutic methods which would help the child to become emotionally and psychologically stronger and to enhance its self - image . Moreover , priority must be given to the restoration and strengthening of the relations of the child with both parents . In conclusion the Commissioner expressed the wish that the difficulties of the child would be overcome soon so that balance in the family would be restored .

By a letter dated DATE , the ORG representative informed the ORG that the second applicant had filed an application before ORG for a final restraining order against GPE in order to prevent him from exercising his contact and other rights with the child . He also informed the ORG that at the same time she was granted an interim order and that on DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s application for supervised contact rights with the first applicant pending the final adjudication of the second applicant ’s application which was fixed for hearing for DATE .

No more information has been given by the applicants concerning the proceedings before ORG .

Under the LAW the Attorney - General is an independent officer of GPE ) . Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that :

“ The Attorney - General of the Republic shall have power , exercisable at his discretion in the public interest , to institute , conduct , take over and continue or discontinue any proceedings of an offence against any person in the Republic . Such power may be exercised by him in person or by officers subordinate to him acting under him and in accordance with his instructions . ”

The Commissioner for Children ’s Rights is an independent institution which deals exclusively with the rights of the child . The Commissioner is appointed by ORG pursuant to the Commissioner for ORG , ( Law CARDINAL(I)/CARDINAL ) which came into force on DATE . Under LAW of PERSON the role of the Commissioner is to protect and promote the rights of the child . The Commissioner publishes , inter alia , DATE reports as well reports on individual complaints and policy position papers .

In her DATE report for DATE the Commissioner , referring to complaints made to her in DATE , included the present case and observed that the manner in which the case had been handled by the police authorities had not completely secured the child ’s interests , as the child , during the whole period when the case was under investigation , had been left exposed and unprotected . As a result there had been a strong risk of secondary victimisation . She noted that she had intervened and had contacted the Chief of Police , underlining the ORG ’s obligations concerning the protection of the child victim . She had also requested details of the procedures and practices used in the case by the police during the investigation , concerning particularly the referral of the child for a medical examination , the co - operation with other competent services , the taking of a statement from the child and , mainly , the reasons for which a video recorded statement was not taken promptly . In so far as the decision not to prosecute the father was concerned , she had asked the police authorities to inform her whether they intended to take any further action for restoring the child ’s rights . She had not received a reply by DATE .


András Sajó;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant married A. They have CARDINAL children , born in DATE .

In DATE the applicant began a relationship with ORG , his supervisor at work . In DATE the applicant moved out of the flat he had lived in with his family . At the request of his children he attempted to reconcile with PERSON and later moved back in for a week . However , he subsequently decided to continue his relationship with ORG

Since DATE he has been living with GPE , her CARDINAL children and her grandson .

On DATE applied for child maintenance .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG ) per month for his CARDINAL children ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition for divorce . He asked the court to declare that both parties were at fault for the breakdown of the marriage .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the divorce . It found that PERSON was a very good mother and wife and was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage . She still loved her husband and was ready to forgive him for his affair . The court stressed that the applicant was the only person responsible and at fault for the breakdown of his marriage , and referred to the fact that his wife had not agreed to a divorce . It was decided that a divorce was not legally permitted in their case . Lastly , the court referred to the fact that the applicant ’s CARDINAL children were still minors and held that a divorce would not be in their best interests .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment , holding that the applicant ’s wife was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage . The judgment subsequently became final . A cassation appeal in ORG was not available .

On DATE initiated a new set of proceedings . She applied to ORG for a formal separation from the applicant . She also sought the payment of child maintenance .

In a written reply of CARDINAL DATE the applicant did not agree to a separation and asked the court to declare the parties divorced .

During a hearing of CARDINAL DATE agreed to a divorce at the applicant ’s exclusive fault . The applicant declared that he was at fault and agreed to the arrangements for child maintenance proposed by A.

Consequently , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the marriage was dissolved . Neither party appealed . The judgment was final .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Review of lawfulness of detention)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of using drugs and providing drugs to third persons .

On DATE the applicant ’s statement was taken by ORG and she was released on DATE . On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an objection to this decision and on DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was placed in detention on remand .

On DATE the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with using drugs and providing drugs to third persons under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE and DATE respectively ORG on the basis of the case file dismissed release requests lodged by the applicant . On DATE and DATE respectively ORG further dismissed the objections lodged by the applicant against the above - mentioned decisions , without holding oral hearings .

On DATE ORG held its first hearing and the applicant appeared before the court . On DATE the trial court released the applicant .