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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE . On CARDINAL DATE he reached the age of majority .

The applicant ( who was a minor at the time of the criminal trial ) and his co - accused , GPE , GPE and FAC , were charged with the aggravated murder of a DATE girl , and the intentional destruction of property . The case was heard in DATE by ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) . The applicant pleaded “ partially guilty ” ( vainu atzīst daļēji ) . He was held in detention on remand in FAC ( Rīgas centrālcietums ) and was transported to ORG for the hearings .

The applicant submits that on DATE , that is to say on DATE , DATE and DATE DATE , in the holding area in the basement of ORG , he was insulted and physically assaulted by the detainee escort officers to make him confess to the crimes . He was made to perform different exercises , such as a “ wall - sit ” exercise , push - ups and a “ duck walk ” ( walking slowly in a squatting position ) . While the applicant was performing the exercises he received blows to the back with a rubber truncheon . The applicant submits further that the escort officers assaulted him before and after the hearings and during the breaks . They beat him on different parts of the body . During the beatings they expressed their opinion regarding the criminal proceedings and manifested a negative and belittling attitude towards him . They also threatened to kill or mutilate the applicant if he did not plead guilty . Having been psychologically broken and without having consulted his lawyer , during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant admitted his guilt and refused to testify .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s mother visited him in FAC . On DATE the applicant ’s mother , acting as his representative , lodged a complaint with the prosecution service . She stated that the escort officers had kicked her son on his body , arms , legs and head , and that he had shown her many bruises . She requested the prosecution service to institute criminal proceedings in respect of these events . On DATE the prosecution service forwarded the complaint to the GPE regional division of ORG . On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a similar complaint with ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON drošības birojs – hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On CARDINAL DATE employees of ORG visited the applicant in FAC . On DATE the ORG wrote a letter to ORG stating that the applicant had alleged that the escort officers had assaulted him . He had borne traces of the alleged violence – a haematoma on his side and abrasions on his arm and legs . The ORG requested ORG to examine the actions of the escort officers . He informed ORG about this letter .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer visited him in FAC . Following the meeting , the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the prosecution service . He stated that CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been beaten by the detainee escort officers in order to make him confess to the crime . The applicant had shown him his injuries . As a result of this coercion at the hearing on DATE the applicant had admitted his guilt , contrary to his defence position . The applicant ’s lawyer requested the prosecution service to institute criminal proceedings in respect of these events . On DATE the prosecution service sent the complaint to the GPE regional division of ORG .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that on DATE he had been assaulted , as a result of which he had admitted his guilt . He maintained his earlier plea of “ partially guilty ” . Moreover , the applicant ’s co - accused also stated that they had been assaulted . The applicant ’s lawyer stated that the applicant had a black eye and that he had been hit on his head . He argued that the applicant was unable to testify . The judge adjourned the hearing in order to request information from FAC on the applicant ’s and his co - accused ’s state of health .

On DATE FAC faxed to ORG a copy of a medical certificate issued after the applicant had been medically examined on CARDINAL DATE . The handwritten medical certificate , dated CARDINAL DATE , provided to ORG stated that the applicant had the following injuries : wounds on his lower legs and on the right hand “ in the typical area ” ; a haematoma on the left forearm ; and a haematoma on the right side . The applicant had stated that he had been beaten with a truncheon while being escorted on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE The ORG also provided a typewritten report , dated DATE , from FAC . According to the report , the applicant ’s state of health on DATE had been satisfactory ; he had had several injuries covered by scabs on his lower legs ; injuries covered by scabs on the “ typical area ” of the right hand caused by the use of handcuffs ; a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter on his left forearm ; and a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter in the “ phase of absorption ” on the right side in the area of the kidney .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that he was unable to testify because he had a headache . His lawyer argued that the applicant ’s medical examination had been superficial . The prosecution was of the view that the applicant was seeking to delay the proceedings . The judge decided to proceed with the trial . DATE ORG found the applicant and his co - accused guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The applicant and his mother lodged appeals indicating inter alia that the applicant had been assaulted by the escort officers . The case was forwarded to ORG ( GPE tiesas GPE tiesu palāta ) .

At a hearing on DATE the prosecution informed the appellate court that the criminal investigation in relation to the applicant ’s “ bodily injuries ” had been terminated , that that decision had taken effect and that no appeal had been lodged against that decision . The relevant material was included in the case file . At a hearing on DATE the applicant admitted his guilt in full and asked the court to review his conviction only in so far as it concerned his sentence .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction , but reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment . In setting the sentence the court took into account that the proceedings before it had included a period of inactivity of DATE and thus had lasted for unreasonably long time .

On DATE ORG with a final decision dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

As submitted by the Government , on DATE ORG instituted an internal inquiry . It requested the applicant ’s medical records from FAC . On DATE ORG , referring to the complaint lodged by the applicant ’s mother ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , sent a copy of the file to the GPE regional division of ORG for it to decide on the lawfulness of the actions of its employees . ORG stated that the file did not indicate that the escort officers had committed a criminal offence .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG regarding his alleged ill - treatment , stating that he would be able to identify the alleged perpetrators . ORG sent the complaint to the GPE regional division of ORG .

On DATE the GPE regional division of ORG , terminated the internal inquiry . It noted that according to the medical documentation concerning the applicant provided by FAC the applicant ’s state of health on DATE had been satisfactory . He had had several wounds on his lower legs covered by scabs ; wounds on the right hand covered by scabs , caused by the use of handcuffs ; a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter on his left forearm ; and a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter “ in the phase of absorption ” on the right side . The GPE regional division of ORG noted the injuries found on GPE At the same time , there had been no visible injuries found on PERSON or F.Č. According to explanations ( paskaidrojumi ) obtained from CARDINAL officers , neither the applicant nor his co - accused had been assaulted . The GPE regional division of ORG concluded that the information gathered did not indicate that the officers had committed a disciplinary offence . It returned the file to ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings in view of the fact that the constituent elements of the offence of “ exceeding official authority ” under section MONEY ) of LAW ( PERSON ) were lacking in the ORG actions . The applicant ’s mother appealed against this decision .

On DATE the prosecution service found that ORG had based the impugned decision on an inquiry conducted by another institution of ORG and medical documentation provided by FAC . It was necessary to question the applicant and his co - accused regarding the circumstances of their transportation and to find out whether any of the employees of FAC had seen injuries on them prior to and after their transportation and whether any of the employees had received any complaints from them in this regard . It was also necessary to find out whether CARDINAL DATE or earlier the applicant or his co - accused had been involved in any kind of conflict in the prison as a result of which they could have sustained the injuries . The prosecution service referred the case back to ORG .

In reply to a request from ORG , on DATE FAC provided information that prison employees who had CARDINAL DATE searched ( pārmeklēt ) the applicant and his co - accused each time prior to and after their being transported had not seen any injuries on them . The applicant and his co - accused had not made any complaints . There were no records showing that DATE they had been involved in any conflicts in the prison . On DATE ORG obtained explanations from the applicant and his co - accused , who maintained that the escort officers had assaulted them . As regards the DATE physical security checks that they had undergone in the prison , they stated that prison employees had not asked them to undress . Therefore their injuries had remained undetected .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings , stating that the information gathered during the additional inquiry did not indicate that the officers had committed any offence under section MONEY ) of LAW . The applicant ’s mother appealed against this decision .

On DATE the prosecution service quashed the decision as it had been based on an incomplete inquiry . It instructed ORG to question the persons with whom the applicant and his coaccused had shared cells CARDINAL DATE and to obtain information regarding breaks during DATE on which the applicant and his co - accused had allegedly been assaulted . It was also necessary to question further the escort officers .

On DATE ORG obtained information from FAC regarding the applicant ’s and his coaccused ’s cellmates . In DATE and DATE it took explanations from them . According to the applicant ’s cellmate , GPE , the applicant had told him that the escort officers had assaulted him and his coaccused . He had shown him marks left by the beatings . It was difficult for DATE to recall details as a long time had passed . Between CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG questioned the escort officers , who stated that they had not assaulted the applicant or his co - accused .

On DATE , for the third time , ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings , stating that the information gathered during the additional inquiry did not indicate that the officers had committed any offence under section MONEY ) of LAW . The applicant ’s mother appealed against this decision .

On DATE the prosecution service quashed the decision . It considered that ORG had not clarified the contradictions between the statements of the applicant and his co - accused on the one hand , and the statements of the escort officers on the other hand , and the circumstances in which the applicant and ORG had obtained the injuries established on CARDINAL DATE . In view of the information gathered during the internal inquiry it was possible that above - mentioned offence under section GPE ) of LAW had been committed . Accordingly , the prosecution service instituted criminal proceedings and returned the file to ORG for further investigation . On DATE the prosecution service informed the applicant ’s mother that the criminal proceedings had been instituted .

DATE the Internal Security Office questioned as witnesses QUANTITY escort officers , who gave largely the same statements . They had not beaten the applicant or his co - accused . They explained that officers wore belts which they never removed because handcuffs , truncheon , gun , pepper spray and gun belt were attached to them . They could not give more detailed statements as a long time had passed since the events . CARDINAL escort officer , GPE , who was questioned as a witness on DATE , stated that he had seen bruises on the applicant and his co - accused during their personal search in the court building . PERSON had thought that they had been beaten in the prison . The escort officers had not assaulted them .

On DATE an inspector of ORG questioned CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - accused , ORG , as a witness .

V.P. stated that on the first trial day the escort officers had made him perform push - ups and a “ duck walk ” , during which CARDINAL escort officers had hit him on his back , abdomen , legs and chest with their legs , fists , a belt and truncheons . The escort officers had also beaten the applicant , who had been next to him . The officers had placed FAC in a holding cell , and after some time they had escorted him to the court room .

GPE and GPE , the applicant ’s co - accused , stated that on the second trial day the escort officers had made them perform push - ups and a “ duck walk ” . While they had been performing the exercises the escort officers had beaten them . PERSON had been hit during a break by CARDINAL escort officers with a black belt on his back CARDINAL times . PERSON had been hit by CARDINAL escort officer on his back and legs CARDINAL times . He had also been hit on his buttocks with a belt CARDINAL times .

PERSON had heard the applicant screaming . On the way back to the prison the applicant had told PERSON that he had been beaten ; later , in the prison , he had shown him CARDINAL bruises on his chest . After the occurrence of the alleged beating had been raised during the trial PERSON had been examined by a prison doctor . He had had no injuries .

V.P. , GPE and FAC stated that they would not be able to identify the officers who had beaten them . They could not recall the events in detail . They did not wish to be declared victims in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness . He stated that on DATE in the basement of the court building the escort officers had made him perform different exercises , such as a wall - sit exercise , pushups and a “ duck walk ” . While he had been performing the exercises , the escort officers had beaten him . He further stated that the escort officers had beaten him on different parts of the body . They had also hit him with a belt . On DATE the inspector presented photographs of the escort officers to the applicant for the purposes of identification . He could not identify the officers who had allegedly assaulted him .

As submitted by the Government , on DATE ORG confirmed that the court building LOC were equipped with a video surveillance system . However , they stated that video recordings were stored for DATE and then erased .

On DATE ORG requested an expert medical report .

In respect of GPE , GPE and GPE the report concluded that their medical documentation contained no records of injuries sustained over the time period in question . In respect of the applicant the report stated that the description of the injuries contained in the medical documentation , in the record of the applicant ’s questioning by the police , and in the hearings transcripts was incomplete . Therefore , it was not possible to determine the exact time at which the injuries had been sustained , how extensive they had been , and the degree of trauma or force that had been employed to inflict them . However , it could not be excluded that the injuries had appeared CARDINAL DATE in the circumstances indicated in the record of the applicant ’s questioning . While it was indicated in the record of the applicant ’s questioning and in the hearings transcripts that injuries had also been inflicted to the applicant ’s face , abdomen , buttocks , lower part of the back , back , and left side of the thorax , such injuries had not been identified in the medical examination of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG questioned PERSON ’s former cellmate , V.A. , who stated that he had seen red patches on ORG back . PERSON had told him that the escort officers had beaten him in the basement of the court building ; they had also beaten the applicant . According to V.A. this had happened prior to CARDINAL DATE . V.A. had heard that the applicant had also been beaten in the prison .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the elements of the offence had not been made out . There was no irrefutable evidence that the escort officers had inflicted the injuries as alleged . According to the expert report , the injuries had not been recorded in the medical documentation precisely . The persons involved in the criminal proceedings had given contradictory accounts of the circumstances in which the injuries had been inflicted .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged an appeal with the prosecution service against the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings , the applicant having on CARDINAL DATE granted her power of attorney ( universālpilnvara ) to take any action concerning his property . This included the right to represent the applicant before the police , the courts and other institutions in relation to all rights vested in him as a victim . Prior to the authorisation she had represented the applicant on the grounds of his being a minor . In the wording of the appeal the applicant ’s mother indicated that she was acting on behalf of the applicant .

She complained of deficiencies in the criminal investigation which had precluded obtaining important information . Namely , the presentation of photographs to the applicant for the purpose of identifying the alleged perpetrators had been organised in a manner intended to impede justice while he had been shown the small black - and - white frontal photographs he had been surrounded by CARDINAL escort officers in an effort to intimidate him . She asked that the investigating authorities organise an identity parade for the applicant and his co - accused and question the applicant ’s co - accused regarding the events in question .

On DATE a prosecutor dismissed her appeal , noting that during the presentation of photographs the applicant had been assisted by his lawyer . They had not made any remarks or requests as regards this procedure . The investigating authorities had established that no force had been used against the applicant and his co - accused and that no threats had been made . From the moment at which the trial had started the ORG had paid particular attention to the applicant and his co - accused . All of the escort officers had been questioned as witnesses . They had had no interest in the outcome of the trial . Therefore , there had been no reason to doubt their account of the events . The applicant ’s co - accused had also been questioned and their evidence assessed . There was no need to take any further investigative steps as the constituent elements of the offence under section ORG ) of LAW were lacking in the ORG actions . The prosecutor indicated that her decision was amenable to appeal before a higher prosecutor .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother appealed against the aforementioned decision before a higher prosecutor . She indicated that she was acting on behalf of the applicant . In addition to the issues raised previously she complained that a long time had passed before criminal proceedings had been instituted . She considered that it had been a deliberate delay to hide any traces of assault . Furthermore , during the internal inquiry ORG had “ interviewed ” the applicant and the coaccused , who had been minors at the relevant time , in the absence of a lawyer or a representative . After those “ interviews ” the co - accused had all refused to testify .

On DATE a higher prosecutor dismissed the applicant ’s mother ’s appeal . He upheld the findings of the lower prosecutor – the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings had been lawful as the constituent elements of the offence had been missing . At the same time , he noted that the applicant had not been declared a victim in the criminal proceedings and hence could not be represented by another person . Furthermore , at the time when the criminal proceedings had been instituted he had reached the age of majority . The higher prosecutor indicated that the applicant ’s mother did not have the right to complain about the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and that it had been wrong for the lower prosecutor to examine her complaint on the merits . That being said , the higher prosecutor also examined her complaint on the merits for the reason of legal certainty as the lower prosecutor had done so . He concluded by indicating that the applicant ’s mother could not lodge further complaints about the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the prosecution service against the aforementioned decision . He stated that his mother had been authorised to lodge complaints in his name under the power of attorney that he had granted her on DATE . He further noted that the assessment of the flaws in the proceedings had been superficial and had not properly addressed the points raised by his mother . He emphasised that no explanation had been given for the injuries that he had sustained while in custody or for the delay in the institution of the investigation and the superficial manner in which it had been conducted . He argued that it might have been that the ORG , acting through its agents , had been willing to cover - up his assault .

On DATE a chief prosecutor responded that the applicant ’s procedural status was that of a witness and that , unlike victims , witnesses had no right to authorise other persons to exercise their procedural rights on their behalf . Furthermore , the applicant himself did not have a right to challenge the response that had been given to his mother , as he was not the addressee of this letter sent to her . Lastly , because he had not been the one who had lodged the initial appeals , the applicant had missed the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of DATE terminating the criminal proceedings . Accordingly , the applicant ’s appeal was not examined . The applicant was informed of the fact that in accordance with domestic law this decision was not amenable to appeal .

On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG , who then instituted an inquiry and requested information from FAC , ORG ( NORP tiesu medicīnas ekspertīzes centrs ) and ORG .

On DATE the ORG delivered a report in which he observed that , as the criminal investigation was still ongoing , it would be premature to assess the proceedings as a whole . However , with regard to the internal inquiry , the ORG expressed concerns regarding the institutional independence of ORG when analysing offences allegedly committed by the police officers .

Furthermore , the internal inquiry had lasted DATE and DATE beyond a reasonable time - limit . The inquiry had not been carried out with the requisite diligence , as exemplified by the repeated quashing of decisions not to institute criminal proceedings . The ORG expressed concerns that flaws in the internal inquiry might render it impossible to establish whether the applicant ’s injuries had been inflicted by the police officers . Thus , the internal inquiry undertaken by ORG could not be regarded as constituting an effective remedy within the meaning of LAW of the LAW . Nonetheless , the ORG considered that it would be premature to pronounce on a violation of LAW .


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

NORP The applicant claims to be a NORP national , born in DATE . At the time of the introduction of the application , he was in the GPE . He is represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The Government of the GPE are represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. PERSON , of ORG . ORG are represented by their Agent , PERSON , and their CoAgent , PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and ORG , may be summarised as follows . Some of the facts are disputed .

NORP The applicant claims to hail from GPE and that he belongs to the Gaaljecel clan , a GPE sub - clan . He further claims that in DATE members of ORG came to his school where they called upon the applicant and his brother PERSON to join ORG . The applicant and ORG refused . DATE , on DATE , the applicant ’s parental home had been attacked and NORP killed . Considering that it had been a targeted attack owing to the refusal to join ORG , the applicant left GPE on DATE and , via GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , travelled to GPE .

On DATE the applicant entered GPE in a group of CARDINAL persons who had landed in GPE ( GPE ) . DATE the local police took his fingerprints and registered him as having illegally entered the territory of ORG . He stated that his name was PERSON , that he was a NORP national and that he was born on DATE . On DATE , the applicant was transferred to ORG ( FAC di PERSON per PERSON ; “ ORG ” ) , where he applied for international protection , giving slightly different personal details , namely that his name was ORG , that he was a NORP national and that he was born on DATE .

On an unspecified date , the applicant was granted an NORP residence permit for subsidiary protection under LAW ) of ORG DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( “ Qualification Directive ” ) . This residence permit was valid for DATE , i.c . until DATE . On DATE , the applicant left the PERSON - Palese reception centre of his own volition for an unknown destination .

On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE , stating that his name was GPE , that he was a NORP national and that he was born in GPE on DATE . DATE , the GPE immigration authorities conducted a first interview ( eerste gehoor ) with the applicant , during which he declared inter alia that he had travelled by road from GPE to GPE from where he had travelled by air , with a stopover in GPE , to the GPE . He wrote down his name , his date and place of birth and his last address , and signed this document .

The examination and comparison of the applicant ’s fingerprints by the GPE authorities generated a PERSON report on DATE , indicating that he had been registered in GPE on DATE and in PERSON on DATE .

On DATE , a GPE Claim interview ( gehoor GPE ) was held with the applicant . After the results of the PERSON report had been put to him , he confirmed that he had been in GPE . He had lied about his age in GPE . He had stated that he was an adult . He had further been forced to give his fingerprints . He denied having applied for asylum in GPE and further stated that he had not had shelter or food in GPE .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG informed the applicant of her intention to reject his asylum request . The applicant filed his written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention on DATE .

On DATE the GPE authorities requested the NORP authorities to take back the applicant under the terms of LAW ( c ) of ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ LAW ” ) . As the NORP authorities failed to react to that request within DATE , they were considered under LAW of LAW as having acceded implicitly to that request .

NORP The applicant ’s asylum request filed in the GPE was rejected on DATE by the Deputy Minister , who found that , pursuant to ORG , GPE was responsible for the processing of the asylum application . The Deputy Minister rejected the applicant ’s argument that the GPE could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust in respect of GPE . The Deputy Minister did not find it established that GPE fell short of its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees , and rejected the applicant ’s argument that he risked treatment in breach of LAW .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision , filed on DATE , was rejected on DATE by the single - judge chamber ( enkelvoudige kamer ) of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE . It rejected , as insufficiently substantiated , the applicant ’s claim that the reception of minor aliens in GPE was deficient and also rejected his argument that , in his case , the NORP authorities had fallen short of their international obligations in respect of asylum seekers . It noted inter alia that the applicant had been given the opportunity to apply for asylum in GPE and found that it did not appear that the applicant had no access to adequate legal remedies . As regards the alleged risk of refoulement from GPE to GPE , ORG considered that he should and could raise this in proceedings in GPE and did not find it established that , where it concerned his possible removal from GPE , he would not be given the possibility to use a legal remedy against removal , including requesting the ORG for an interim measure under LAW .

On DATE , the applicant filed an objection ( verzet ) against this ruling with ORG .

On DATE , the Minister of ORG notified the applicant of his intention to transfer the applicant to GPE on DATE and not later than DATE .

The application was introduced to ORG DATE . On DATE , the President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to GPE .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE and apparently after a decision to accept the applicant ’s objection of CARDINAL DATE , a CARDINAL - judge chamber ( meervoudige kamer ) of ORG of The GPE examined and rejected the applicant ’s appeal of DATE . ORG held that the applicant had not demonstrated that GPE would fall short of its obligations under LAW or Article CARDINAL of the Convention . This finding was not altered by the fact that , on DATE , a Rule CARDINAL indication had been given to the GPE as this temporary measure could not be interpreted as an indication about the eventual finding on the merits by the ORG .

On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE , ORG accepted the further appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE , accepted the applicant ’s appeal against the Deputy Minister ’s decision of DATE , and quashed this decision but ordered that its legal effects were to remain entirely intact . In view of the ORG ’s judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , it noted that the applicant had relied from the outset on documents containing general information and found that these had not been examined in the manner as described in the ORG v. GPE and GPE judgment . As it did , however , not find any reason for reaching a different decision in the applicant ’s case , ORG decided that the legal consequences of the impugned decision of DATE were to remain intact . No further appeal lay against this decision .

On DATE , the President of the Section decided that information was required from ORG and a number of factual questions were put to ORG which concerned the applicant ’s situation in GPE before his arrival in the GPE . ORG submitted their replies on DATE and the applicant ’s comments in reply were submitted on CARDINAL DATE . He stated , inter alia , that he had lied about his age at the time of his initial arrival in GPE as well as when he later applied for asylum , fearing that admitting that he was a minor would entail his separation from his countrymen with whom he had arrived in GPE . The applicant denied having left the PERSON - Palese centre of his own volition . He was forced to leave this centre because it was about to be closed down . As no subsequent reception facilities were provided to him , he had been forced to live in the streets in horrendous circumstances .

The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum seekers and transfers of asylum seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications DATE . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL & CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and § § DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , DATE ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations)

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

The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE ) . She is the mother of the second , third , fourth and fifth applicant , all NORP nationals and born respectively in DATE and DATE .

During the period from DATE to DATE identity checks of NORP nationals residing in GPE were carried out in the streets , markets and other workplaces as well as at their homes . Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations . After a period of custody in police stations , they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court , which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from NORP territory . Subsequently , some were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time , and then taken by bus to various airports in GPE , and expelled to GPE by aeroplane . Some of the NORP nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of GPE by their own means ( for further details as to the background of the case see GPE v. GPE ( I ) , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the first applicant , her husband and her CARDINAL children arrived in GPE for the first time . At that time there was no visa requirement for NORP citizens in place . In the subsequent years the first applicant , her husband and the children had been back and forth several times between GPE and GPE .

NORP In DATE the first applicant and her children again entered the territory of GPE with a visa valid for DATE . They settled together with their husband / father in the village of PERSON , in the PERSON district of GPE city .

In DATE the first applicant gave birth to her fourth child , the fifth applicant . The first applicant did not apply for a birth certificate for the fifth applicant at that time , since she was unlawfully residing in GPE .

At DATE , the applicants moved to the city of PERSON in order to avoid expulsion .

On DATE a police officer visited the applicants’ family home in PERSON and requested the first applicant to produce her identity papers . Owing to the absence of visa documents the officer asked all applicants to follow him to the local police station , where an administrative offence report was drawn up . The applicants left the police station after TIME . The police officer informed the first applicant that a court hearing concerning her case would take place soon . He further advised her to apply for a birth certificate for the fifth applicant .

On DATE ORG in GPE issued a temporary birth certificate for the fifth applicant , valid until DATE .

On DATE a hearing before ORG of the GPE Region took place , following which an expulsion decision was issued . The court only ordered the expulsion of the first applicant , even though mentioning in its decision that she was mother to CARDINAL children . The hearing lasted TIME and despite the first applicant ’s limited knowledge of the LANGUAGE language , she was not assisted by an interpreter .

On DATE , after having received the expulsion decision of DATE all CARDINAL applicants left GPE . Due to suspended air , rail , road , sea and postal communications between GPE and GPE , the applicants took the train from GPE to GPE ( GPE ) . The first applicant was DATE pregnant at the material time and her CARDINAL minor children were TIME , DATE .

According to the applicants their train was stopped by NORP migration officers on DATE at TIME near the NORP / NORP border and all NORP nationals were asked to get off the train with their belongings . The officers collected the applicants’ identity and travel documents and confiscated CARDINAL ORG from the first applicant , which allegedly had not been declared . The officers informed all the NORP including the applicants , that there were various irregularities in their documents and that they could not continue their journey , whereas all NORP could resume their journey on the train .

The CARDINAL applicants were then requested to walk with the other NORP nationals to a bus , which went to PERSON . CARDINAL migration officers escorted the group but would not inform them of the authorities’ intention nor where the group was being taken . Due to the cold weather and her advanced pregnancy the walk and the bus ride were particular difficult for the first applicant . In particular , since she had to carry a suitcase and her youngest child . Her oral complaints to the officers about these circumstances were of no avail .

Once the group arrived in PERSON , the migration officers asked the group to accompany them to the migration service office . The first applicant was unable to continue walking and waited outside for TIME with her children . She was worried for the health of her minor children and for the unborn child .

On DATE , at CARDINAL am , the group was taken to PERSON train station for TIME . They had to pay MONEY to the police officers , who guarded them , to be allowed to go to the toilet . No water or food was provided .

At daybreak , the police officers asked the group to go to the migration service office again , where they spent the whole day waiting outside at a temperature of CARDINAL C.

In TIME the first applicant ’s health deteriorated , her children were crying and coughing and no shelter , water or food was offered by the authorities . Finally , the group of NORP rented an unheated , CARDINAL - room basement flat in PERSON , for which the first applicant had to pay MONEY per day for her and the children . CARDINAL women and QUANTITY children from the group of NORP , including the applicants , settled in CARDINAL room , which had CARDINAL beds . The remaining CARDINAL rooms were occupied by CARDINAL NORP men .

According to the applicants the migration officers regularly visited the flat , but the first applicant ’s complaints about her worsening health were to no avail .

On DATE the first applicant tried to cross the NORP / NORP border with her CARDINAL eldest children , the second , third and fourth applicant . The fifth applicant stayed with the other NORP , as her birth certificate had expired on DATE . However , they were stopped by the customs officers who indicated that the court ’s expulsion decision only concerned the first applicant and not her children . They were subsequently sent back to PERSON .

The first applicant ’s health worsened , she suffered from a cold and had a fever , became depressed and had repeated asthma attacks .

On DATE , after having gone back and forth to the migration service office , and with the help of an employee from the consulate service of ORG in GPE , the first applicant finally obtained transit visa for her children and all other necessary documents , so that all CARDINAL applicants could leave for GPE .

NORP Several national broadcasting television companies reported on the PERSON situation in PERSON on a DATE basis CARDINAL .

According to the Government the border control services , which conducted immigration controls in the trains going to GPE , did not bring any NORP nationals to the migration services on CARDINAL or DATE . However , on DATE the name of the fifth applicant was registered by ORG of the Interior at Derbent station in the register of passengers put off trains . She was , however , registered as a NORP national . The other CARDINAL applicants were not registered in the aforementioned register .

The Government further explained that according to the normal procedure persons , who are put off international trains , are invited to ORG to include their personal data in the register . These persons , however , are neither coerced to do so , nor accompanied on their route to the station , nor passed over to the migration service department .

Further investigations by the NORP authorities revealed , according to the Government , that the first applicant temporarily resided in a house in PERSON with the consent of the house owners . According to the testimony of the house owners the first applicant lived there free of charge , was not accompanied by children and no police officer or other official visited the first applicant in the house .

On DATE a group of CARDINAL NORP , including the applicants , travelled to the NORP / NORP border in CARDINAL buses that they had hired . At the border the customs officers checked the documents for TIME , while the applicants had to wait standing outside .

With another bus the group travelled through the city of GPE to the NORP / NORP border . The last QUANTITY to the border the applicants had to walk , as the bus driver had asked them to get off the bus : The first applicant and her youngest child , the fifth applicant , were able to take a taxi to the border , but the CARDINAL other applicants had to continue walking ; the temperature was below QUANTITY

After having arrived in GPE , the first applicant ’s health was particularly bad . She suffered from a severe cough and fever , her right leg had grown numb and her general condition was extremely weak . Owing to her financial situation and the lack of health insurance the applicant did not visit a hospital right away . On DATE a pregnancy examination showed that the pregnancy was progressing and that the fetus was well .

On DATE , the first applicant ’s health worsened , she had an asthma attack and severe abdominal pain .

On DATE , the first applicant was taken to hospital where she gave birth to a stillborn child DATE .

According to the death certificate issued by ORG on DATE , the child died as a result of “ intranatal hipoqsy ” caused by a viral infection . The birth history no CARDINAL , issued on the same date , stated that “ the stress experienced by the pregnant mother during the expulsion could be considered a reason for the child ’s death ” .

During DATE , the first applicant suffered from severe depression and panic attacks . Furthermore , the fourth applicant developed a very bad cough and caught pneumonia . The fifth applicant , the first applicant ’s youngest child , was deeply affected psychologically by the expulsion : she was constantly crying and afraid of other people and diagnosed with “ behavioral disorder ” .

NORP On DATE , the first applicant lodged a complaint with ORG office of GPE . She directly mentioned violations of ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW and requested a thorough investigation and the punishment of those responsible .

On DATE , the first applicant ’s representative received an answer , informing him that the complaint had been forwarded to the Prosecutor of PERSON and that he would be notified about further procedural actions taken in this respect .

However , he received no further information from the NORP authorities .

The ORG observes that it is confronted with a dispute over the events starting from DATE and reiterates that the proceedings before the ORG are adversarial in nature . It is therefore for the parties to substantiate their factual arguments by providing the ORG with the necessary evidence . Whereas the ORG is responsible for establishing the facts , it is up to the parties to provide active assistance by supplying it with all the relevant information ( see Lisnyy and others v. GPE and GPE DATE . ) , ORG . ORG GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) .

The ORG must therefore reach its decision on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties . In the proceedings before it , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or predetermined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions . According to its established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake ( see PERSON and Others v. PERSON [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .

The ORG notes that the applicants submitted documents regarding their medical history and confirming the death of the first applicant ’s unborn child . In relation to the events in question they provided copies of their passports and of the train tickets and records from the before mentioned television reports ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition they submitted the complaint to ORG office as well as its reply .

The Government provided the ORG with the expulsion decision of ORG of the GPE and the correlating administrative offence report .

In regards to the parties’ submissions and the provided documents the ORG notes the following : The Government confirmed that the fifth applicant , a DATE child , was put off the train and registered by ORG of the Interior at PERSON station . Having particular regard to the age of the fifth applicant , this fact allows the inference that the other applicants accompanying the fifth applicant were also put off the train but not registered by ORG of the Interior . This inference is further corroborated by the television reports , showing the applicants in PERSON , and the applicants’ detailed submission to the ORG as well as to ORG office .

In sum the ORG finds it established that the applicants’ train travel from GPE to GPE was interrupted by NORP authorities , that the applicants were put off the train in TIME and that they awaited the issuance of transit visa in PERSON until DATE .


CASE OF ADEISHVILI (MAZMISHVILI) v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

According to the applicant , in DATE , at DATE , he moved to GPE from GPE with his parents . In DATE he settled in GPE , PERSON , whereas his parents moved back to GPE .

On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of extortion and theft of a passport , and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . According to the applicant , in order to spare his mother ’s feelings , he told the prosecuting authorities that his name was PERSON . On DATE the applicant was released on parole . Upon release he was issued with an ORG card in the name of PERSON .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . Again he claimed that his name was PERSON and presented the relevant ID card . On CARDINAL June CARDINAL the applicant was released on parole .

The applicant was in a relationship with PERSON On DATE PERSON gave birth to a girl . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was recognised as the girl ’s father . On DATE the applicant and PERSON got married . On DATE PERSON gave birth to the couple ’s second daughter . According to the Government , PERSON and her QUANTITY daughters are NORP nationals .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was found administratively liable for failing to have his residency in GPE duly authorised .

On DATE the applicant was registered as a migrant under the name of PERSON . The registration remained valid until CARDINAL DATE .

It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant asked the NORP migration authorities to issue him with a NORP passport indicating that his name was PERSON . Following their refusal , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG of ORG and GPE , asking the court to confirm that he had been residing permanently in GPE since DATE .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request . The court based its findings on the applicant ’s birth certificate in the name of PERSON submitted by him , a certificate issued by the ORG municipal authorities and the testimony of PERSON , stating that the applicant had been renting a flat from her since DATE .

On DATE the applicant received a NORP passport in the name of PERSON .

On DATE the regional migration service asked ORG to quash the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remit the matter for new consideration .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , noting that the certificate confirming the applicant ’s residence in ORG had not in fact been issued by the town administration . The matter was remitted for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG noted that the applicant , who had been duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing , had failed to appear in court on CARDINAL occasions . ORG left the matter without consideration on the merits and discontinued the proceedings . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE the migration service terminated the applicant ’s NORP citizenship and invalidated his passport . According to the applicant , the migration services transmitted the case file to the prosecuting authorities for further inquiry . He did not inform ORG inquiry ’s outcome .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to a police station where he spent DATE . His passport was confiscated . On DATE an expert from the regional department of the interior confirmed that the applicant ’s fingerprints corresponded to those belonging to GPE Goderziyevich PERSON .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant was taken to ORG , which started the hearing at TIME The applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer . ORG considered that the applicant was PERSON . It found that , as a person without citizenship , he had failed to have his residency in GPE duly authorised . It therefore imposed a fine on him and ordered his expulsion from GPE to GPE . The court also held that the applicant should be remanded in custody pending expulsion until DATE . In particular , the court noted as follows :

“ When deciding whether to expel PERSON . PERSON GPE and taking into account that the defendant has a family and a minor child , the court sees no reason not to expel [ him ] in view of the offences he has committed in GPE , his unlawful acquisition of a NORP passport and his lack of employment . ”

NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE alleging , inter alia , that the ORG - appointed lawyer had not carried out his defence effectively , and that the court had failed to provide him with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE or a record of his own questioning of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . The applicant was represented by counsel of his own choosing .

On DATE the police sent the documents concerning the applicant ’s expulsion to the NORP authorities .

On DATE the President of ORG upheld the judgments of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

It appears that the regional migration service could not prepare the documents necessary to expel the applicant to GPE and asked ORG to extend the applicant ’s detention pending expulsion .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court noted that the NORP authorities had not yet prepared the documents necessary for the applicant ’s expulsion to GPE . The court considered that the applicant , if released , might abscond or fail to comply with the expulsion order . The applicant ’s detention was repeatedly extended by ORG .

On DATE the NORP authorities informed the regional migration service that a real PERSON was residing in GPE and it was not possible to issue the requested documents in that name for the applicant ’s expulsion to GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release . Referring to the information supplied by the NORP authorities , the court considered that it was not possible to expel the applicant under the name of PERSON .

According to the ORG , the applicant has not been expelled . He has no document confirming his ORG , and the NORP authorities have not established his identity .

According to the applicant , ORG , when deciding to detain him pending expulsion , took into account a certificate prepared by police captain PERSON on which it was noted that the applicant “ had been involved in car thefts , belonged to the GPE organised criminal group ... [ and ] was a drug dealer . ”

Despite a complaint lodged by the applicant that PERSON had knowingly disseminated false information about him , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against P.

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in a special detention centre in GPE .

According to the ORG , all the inmates detained with a view to expulsion were held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . During the period of the applicant ’s detention , the cell population varied from CARDINAL persons in all CARDINAL cells . On average , the number of persons detained in a cell was CARDINAL .

Each detainee was provided with a mattress , a pillow , sheets and a blanket . The sheets were changed on DATE the applicant was allowed to take a shower . According to the relevant ledger , the applicant took showers on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE DATE , and on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

Each cell had a window opening onto a hallway . The window was covered with a metal grill . The light coming from the hallway was sufficient for reading . The window was periodically kept open to ensure proper ventilation of the cell . There was a table and a bench with seating for CARDINAL persons in each cell . Both the table and the bench were fixed onto the floor .

The cells where the applicant was detained from DATE to CARDINAL DATE were not equipped with a toilet . The detainees were taken out of the cell at least twice a day to use the toilet in the building . During the nighttime the inmates had to use buckets placed in the cells . The buckets were emptied and disinfected DATE . In DATE toilets and wash sinks were installed in all cells of the special detention centre . They became operational in DATE .

Food was provided CARDINAL times a day . Breakfast consisted of hot tea , sugar and a pastry ; lunch comprised of soup , meat or fish with a side dish , and tea with sugar or a fruit drink . The applicant also received food parcels from his family and friends .

According to the applicant ’s file , he declared a hunger strike twice . Each time he was examined by a paramedic . On a number of occasions ambulance doctors attended to the applicant .

The special detention centre had an exercise area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered with a metal grill . The detainees had TIME outdoor exercise DATE .

NORP The applicant was allowed to telephone his family on several occasions . The internal regulations did not provide for the right to a family visit .

The applicant provided the following information as regards his detention in the special detention centre :

Prior to the refurbishment of the special detention centre , there had been no toilets or wash sinks in the cell . The inmates had had to use a bucket placed in the cell . It had been emptied twice a day . The inmates had been allowed to use toilets outside the cell twice a day . The toilets had offered no privacy . CARDINAL inmates had been taken simultaneously to the lavatory and had had to use the toilet in front of the others waiting for their turn .

The toilets installed in the cells offered no privacy either . Only cell no . CARDINAL had a QUANTITY high partition separating the toilet from the living area of the cell .

The applicant did not contest the ORG ’s submissions as regards the frequency of the showers he had been allowed to take . According to him , the hot water had run out after TIME . Each time the inmates had had from CARDINAL TIME to take a shower and to do their laundry . They could use only cold water for the laundry . The sheets , which were old and ragged , had been changed every two weeks .

The windows in the cell were covered by CARDINAL sets of metal bars on both sides . Access to daylight was insufficient . The table and the bench allowed for QUANTITY persons to eat . The rest of the inmates had to eat sitting on their beds . In cell no . CARDINAL the applicant was given a mattress that was infested with lice .

Cell no . CARDINAL , which was unofficially called “ a disciplinary cell ” , had no windows . During DATE the applicant spent in that cell , he was not taken out for outdoor exercise .

The DATE outdoor exercise lasted TIME and took place in a yard measuring QUANTITY .

The applicant had nothing to do while detained at the special detention centre . There was no library , television or radio . He was not allowed to subscribe to a newspaper or a magazine .

Breakfast was served at TIME , lunch was served at TIME and dinner , if any , was served at TIME Breakfast consisted of a piece of white bread , a mug of hot water and a piece of sugar . No spoon was provided . For lunch inmates received soup with an unpleasant odour and taste , a minced meat cutlet and a piece of rye bread . For dinner they were given a burger and cabbage . The meals were DATE . Because of the applicant ’s condition , he could not eat any of the food served . Drinking water was not provided at all . The foodstuff sent by the applicant ’s family quickly perished as no fridge was provided and the applicant had to store the food under his bed .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He is an advocate . In that capacity , he represented the plaintiff in civil proceedings instituted on CARDINAL DATE before ORG ( PERSON ORG ) , in which his client sought payment of a certain amount of money from the defendant .

On DATE ORG held a hearing , which the applicant attended . At the end of the hearing , the court scheduled DATE for DATE .

The applicant did not attend the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , at which the court made a decision to suspend the proceedings ( mirovanje postupka ) in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant , on behalf of the plaintiff , lodged an appeal against that decision .

He explained that he had been unable to attend the hearing owing to a vehicle malfunction , and that he had tried to contact the court and the defendant ’s representative , with a view to informing them of the reason for his absence . He further stated that , after the hearing , he had spoken by telephone with the defendant ’s representative , who had told him that , despite his ( the representative ’s ) suggestion to proceed and hear the defendant ’s testimony , the court had decided to adjourn the hearing and suspend the proceedings . The applicant argued that , if that was true , the court ’s decision to suspend the proceedings had had no legal basis . He explained that suspending proceedings was an instrument for maintaining procedural discipline , the effect of which was to delay proceedings and thereby penalise the parties for their inaction . Yet , in his case , he and his client had been penalised by a delay even though it was through no fault of his own that he had failed to attend the hearing . He then stated :

“ With a view to highlighting the unacceptable conduct of the judge , the following circumstances have to be mentioned .

The parties’ representatives and the defendant attended the hearing held on DATE .

The plaintiff did not attend because no testimonies from the parties were scheduled , he is of low income , and he resides in GPE .

The hearing in question was characterised by the fact that the party present at court did not give evidence and the judge attempted to adjourn the hearing without scheduling another one .

The judge [ eventually ] adjourned the hearing , and only at the insistence of the plaintiff ’s representative scheduled another CARDINAL for DATE .

Such conduct from the judge is absolutely unacceptable . In behaving in this way , he seeks to give the impression that he is proceeding with the case [ i.e. that the case is being dealt with ] , whereas , essentially , hearings are being held which are devoid of substance .

Since the plaintiff ’s representative has no reason to doubt the defendant ’s representative ’s statement that he had suggested hearing the defendant ’s testimony at the hearing in question [ the hearing of DATE ] , that statement indicates that the court could not have issued the contested decision .

The contested decision should therefore be quashed . ”

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , Judge PERSON DATE who was the first - instance single judge in the above case DATE fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) for contempt of court . The relevant part of that decision reads :

“ ... the advocate in the appeal ... first admitted not having attended the hearing scheduled for DATE ... owing to a vehicle malfunction ...

Instead of asking for the proceedings to be restored to the status quo ante [ restitutio in integrum ob terminem elapsum , povrat u prijašnje stanje ] as a result of objective reasons and force majeure , the advocate in question , for no reason whatsoever , states on the second page of the appeal , ‘ Such conduct from the judge is absolutely unacceptable . In behaving in this way , he seeks to give the impression that he is proceeding with the case [ i.e. that the case is being dealt with ] , whereas , essentially , hearings are being held which are devoid of substance.’ [ T]hat statement is certainly offensive to the court and the judge [ concerned ] , and as such constitutes unacceptable communication between the court and the advocate representing CARDINAL of the parties .

By making that offensive statement , the advocate in question implies that the judge hearing the case proceeds pointlessly , and most likely proceeds pointlessly with all other cases , which represents a serious insult to both the court and the judge .

For that insult , the court fined the advocate HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Such a fine will most likely [ discourage ] the advocate from insulting the court and judge hearing the case in future , in his appeals and [ other ] submissions , and encourage him to pay them due respect in all circumstances . ”

NORP The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that his statement had not been offensive or demeaning . Rather , by making that statement , he had criticised the first - instance court ’s inefficiency in conducting the proceedings . In particular , in his appeal , the applicant wrote , inter alia , the following :

“ The operative provisions [ of the contested decision ] indicate that the fine was imposed for offending the court in the appeal of DATE by stating , ‘ Such conduct from the judge is absolutely unacceptable . In behaving in this way , he seeks to give the impression that he is proceeding with the case [ i.e. that the case is being dealt with ] , whereas , essentially , hearings are being held which are devoid of substance’ .

I consider the contested decision to be without basis .

The quoted statement does not represent an insult . [ Rather , ] it is an assessment of how usefully the proceedings in the present case were conducted .

The statements quoted in the contested decision ... can not in themselves , and especially having regard to the behaviour of the judge hearing the case , [ be regarded as ] disrespectful , which would justify the need to issue a decision on the fine .

In addition to the plaintiff ’s representative , the defendant and [ her ] representative attended the hearing scheduled for DATE . The record [ of that hearing ] states that [ the plaintiff ] reaffirmed his action and the submissions of DATE , and that the defendant maintained the arguments expressed in [ her ] response ... of CARDINAL DATE . Beside this , nothing else happened at that hearing .

Apart from acknowledging the facts as stated above , the judge hearing the case did not carry out any action intended to bring the proceedings to an end , except for scheduling the next hearing .

At that hearing , he did not even oblige the defendant to provide evidence for the claims expressed in [ her ] response .

At that hearing , not even a decision to hear testimonies from the parties was adopted . Only at the request of the plaintiff ’s representative did the judge decide to schedule the next hearing .

In the circumstances , it is evident that the hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE would have been identical ... to the previous hearing .

The plaintiff ’s representative considers such conduct to be at odds with the purpose of law .

Given that the purpose of a hearing is concentrated deliberation , that purpose is frustrated when such concentrated deliberation is lacking . One should also bear in mind that such conduct increases the costs of proceedings ... [ without ] rational justification .

No intention to offend was expressed in the submissions in question [ that is , the appeal of DATE ] . The quoted statement represents a view assessing how usefully the proceedings were being conducted .

In the reasoning [ of the contested decision ] , it is stated that the representative implies that the judge hearing the case ‘ most likely proceeds pointlessly with all other GPE . That view is not supported by any argument and has no basis [ in what was written in the appeal ] . ”

By a decision of DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u Vukovaru ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision . The relevant part of that decision , which was served on the applicant on DATE , reads :

“ When deciding to fine the representative for contempt of court ... the first - instance court correctly held DATE and gave valid reasons for its view – that such statements constituted unacceptable communication between the court and an advocate ... , the assessment of which is within the discretion of the court before which the proceedings are pending .

Those statements ... go beyond the limits of an advocate ’s role in the proceedings ... and may be legally characterised as abuse of process on account of inappropriate communication . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of the ordinary courts . In so doing , he complained that those decisions were in breach of his freedom of expression . He explicitly relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decision was not open to constitutional review . That decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis

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

On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with theft . On DATE the case was settled and the criminal proceedings were discontinued .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a murder . The applicant was DATE at the time of the arrest .

On DATE ORG of the LOC authorised the applicant ’s pre - trial detention noting as follows :

“ Having heard the parties to the proceedings and examined the materials , [ the court ] has established that there is reasonable suspicion that [ the applicant ] has committed the crime . The other participants in the crime confessed and incriminated [ the applicant ] .

Given that [ the applicant ] has been previously charged with criminal offences , that he is suspected of having committed a serious crime , it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure . ”

On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE noting as follows :

“ Regard being had to the [ applicant ’s ] character and the seriousness of the charges against him , the court considers that it is not possible to lift or replace the earlier imposed preventive measure because [ the applicant ] may interfere with the establishment of the truth or abscond . ”

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It reiterated verbatim its earlier reasoning .

On DATE the investigator dropped the murder charges against the applicant for lack of corpus delicti . He further re - classified the charge against the applicant as robbery committed by a group of persons .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pretrial detention until DATE . The court noted as follows :

“ Regard being had to the seriousness of the charges , the [ applicant ’s ] character and the negative references , the court does not discern grounds to change the earlier imposed preventive measure or to release [ the applicant ] . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal noting that , in view of the seriousness of the charges , the applicant might interfere with the establishment of the truth , abscond or re - offend .

On DATE ORG fixed the preliminary hearing of the applicant ’s case for DATE . The court also ruled that the applicant should be detained pending trial . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the said decision on appeal .

On DATE ORG rescheduled the preliminary hearing in the applicant ’s case for DATE . The applicant and his lawyer were present . The lawyer asked for the applicant ’s release into his mother ’s care pending trial . The court dismissed the request and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE noting that “ the preventive measure earlier imposed on [ the applicant ] should remain unchanged ” . Both the applicant and his lawyer appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . The court decided to consider the matter in the applicant ’s absence noting that the applicant had attended the hearing on DATE and had been provided with an opportunity to be heard . The applicant ’s lawyer and the prosecutor were present and made submissions to the court . As regards the extension of the applicant ’s detention , the court ruled that the circumstances underlying the applicant ’s remand in custody continued to exist . In this connection the court noted as follows :

“ It follows from the materials of the case that [ the applicant ] has earlier committed another crime , that he had been absent from classes in school and had demonstrated anti - social behavior . He had not spent TIME at home and had not lived with his mother for extended periods of time . His mother could not control his behavior ; she did not pay due attention to his upbringing and had no influence over him . The [ applicant ’s ] release into his mother ’s care ... would not ensure his due behavior pending trial . ”

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s and CARDINAL other GPE detention until DATE . The court noted :

“ The defendants are charged with particularly serious offences ; the circumstances of their remand in custody have not changed . The court does not discern circumstances that would allow it to apply a more lenient preventive measure , including the [ applicant ’s ] release into his mother ’s care . ”

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

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention and CARDINAL other GPE detention until DATE . The court reiterated verbatim its reasoning of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld , in substance , the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE released the applicant on parole .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

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


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

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

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her post as director of a municipal art school in GPE .

DATE the applicant took ORG to court , seeking reinstatement .

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG of GPE dismissed her claim in full . It found that her dismissal had been lawful and had come as a response to her unsatisfactory performance at work .

The applicant appealed . She then submitted an addendum to the appeal , stating that Judge PERSON was biased because the judge ’s daughter worked as a lawyer at ORG . The applicant also alleged that as Judge PERSON was also a Deputy President of ORG and , among other duties , was in charge of the allocation of civil cases , she had intentionally taken charge of the applicant ’s case .

An internal inquiry into the impartiality of Judge PERSON was ordered by the President of ORG of GPE .

The inquiry showed that there were no reasons for the judge to recuse herself suo motu in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There were no grounds to believe that Judge PERSON had allocated the applicant ’s case to herself intentionally . She had received the case because she was a senior judge who dealt with complex issues , such as reinstatement disputes , on a regular basis . Furthermore , her daughter had no evident connection to the applicant and had never been involved with the case . Also , the judge ’s daughter had been on maternity leave since DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant . ORG addressed the applicant ’s allegations of impartiality and also found them unsubstantiated .

Section QUANTITY of LAW Procedure reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... a judge shall not hear a case and shall be recused when :

CARDINAL ) he or she was involved in the case as a prosecutor , court clerk , representative , witness , expert or interpreter ;

CARDINAL ) he or she is related to any person involved in a case or their respective representatives ;

CARDINAL ) he or she has a personal direct or indirect interest in the outcome of a case or there are some other grounds to doubt his or her impartiality . ”


Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

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

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

An ancestor of the applicant , of whom the applicant is the only heir , owned land in the city of PERSON that was expropriated after DATE . Following the adoption of denationalisation legislation in GPE , in DATE the applicant initiated restitution proceedings .

NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the governor of the GPE region ( “ the GPE governor ” ) held that the land could not be restituted in kind , and awarded the applicant compensation in lieu of restitution . The PERSON governor found that the land had been taken for the construction of buildings and streets , that the construction works had been completed , and that the land which remained unoccupied was insufficient to be registered as separate plot . These findings were reached on the basis of documents submitted by the PERSON municipality , including a letter dated DATE stating expressly that the unoccupied land was insufficient for a separate plot .

According to the applicant , since he had no ground to question the veracity of the documents submitted by the municipality , he did not seek a judicial review of the PERSON governor ’s decision , which thus became final . In DATE the applicant received the compensation awarded to him , which took the form of compensation bonds .

Subsequently the applicant became aware that at about the time when he had sought restitution the municipality had initiated a procedure aimed at separating that part of the land claimed by him which had been unoccupied by buildings or other construction and creating from it an independent plot . The creation of a new plot with a surface of QUANTITY was approved by the mayor of PERSON in a decision of DATE . After that the plot was sold to a third party and construction works were commenced .

In DATE the applicant brought a tort action against the NORP municipality , arguing that it had failed to submit to the PERSON governor correct information regarding the status of the land claimed by him . He considered that this had caused him damage , in that had he been awarded partial restitution in kind on the basis of the correct information , he would have received more than what he had actually received after the sale of his compensation bonds . The applicant assessed the losses he had incurred at MONEY ( ORG ) .

The Sofia City Court commissioned an expert report , which confirmed that the documents submitted by the PERSON municipality in the restitution proceedings had not accurately reflected the land ’s true status . In point of fact , the land unoccupied by construction at the time had been sufficient to form a separate plot under the statutory requirements . ORG accepted the report ’s findings .

In a judgment of DATE it dismissed the applicant ’s action . It noted that a number of circumstances should have been established in order to substantiate the tort claim ; however , it had not been shown that the land claimed by the applicant had been expropriated on any of the grounds giving rise to an entitlement to restitution , that the applicant had in fact sought restitution in kind , and that , lastly , the PERSON governor had refused such restitution in kind ( and if he had , on what legal ground ) . Thus , it had not been shown that a causal link existed between the alleged damage and the defendant ’s actions .

On appeal , on DATE the above judgment was upheld by ORG . It also pointed out that in order to prove his claim the applicant had had to establish a causal link between the alleged damage and the actions of the defendant , consisting of a number of elements , and that the failure to establish just CARDINAL of them would lead to the rejection of the claim . Like the first - instance court , ORG pointed out that a number of elements in the causal link were missing . It held that it was not clear on what evidence the PERSON governor had relied in granting compensation in the restitution proceedings . It further held that the applicant had not requested restitution in kind and that it was not proven that he had been entitled to restitution in kind , as it was not established that the documents submitted by the PERSON municipality had been the only basis for holding that such restitution was impossible .

Upon a further appeal by the applicant , ORG judgment was upheld by ORG in a final judgment of DATE . ORG main argument was that the applicant had failed to apply for a judicial review of the PERSON governor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and seek to establish that a partial restitution in kind had been possible . Thus , any damage incurred by the applicant had not been due to actions on the part of the PERSON municipality but rather to his own failure to act .

NORP In separate proceedings , in DATE the applicant brought an action against the governors of the GPE and PERSON regions . That action was dismissed in a final judgment by ORG . On DATE ORG also dismissed an application by the applicant for the re - opening of the proceedings .


Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE and is currently living in the GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Ms S. den Boer , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , of ORG . ORG , who had been invited to intervene under LAW of ORG , were represented by their Agent , PERSON , and their co - Agent , PERSON .

The following summary of the facts of the case is based on the submissions of the applicant and on the replies received from ORG and GPE to factual questions put to them under LAW ( a ) of ORG .

NORP The applicant claims to be a national of GPE because both her parents were nationals of that country . She had lived in GPE all her life when she left that country in DATE , out of fear of deportation to GPE , where she would have to undertake military service . Subsequently , having stayed for some time in GPE and GPE , the applicant arrived in GPE on DATE , where she applied for asylum under another identity . She was granted a residence permit in GPE which was valid for DATE until DATE and was later extended for DATE until DATE . However , she left GPE for the GPE in DATE because , having been granted a residence permit , she purportedly received no other support . She was not provided with ( money for ) food or medical assistance , and was forced to live on the street . Allegedly , she applied to ORG authorities and human rights organisations for help on a number of occasions , but without success .

At the time of her entry to the GPE in DATE , the applicant was pregnant . She was subsequently diagnosed as being HIV - positive .

The applicant applied for asylum in the GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant gave birth to a daughter in the GPE .

On DATE the Minister of Justice ( Minister PERSON ) rejected the applicant ’s request , finding GPE responsible for the determination of her asylum application , pursuant to ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ LAW ” ) . The Minister dismissed the applicant ’s claim that , given her appalling living conditions in GPE DATE , she would risk treatment contrary to LAW if returned to GPE , considering that that claim remained wholly unsubstantiated . The general reports relied on by the applicant , which contained negative accounts of the situation of asylum - seekers in GPE , were not considered specific facts and circumstances relating to her individual case such as to form a basis for assuming that GPE would not comply with its obligations flowing from the Convention . Lastly , the applicant ’s contention that her medical situation did not allow her transfer to GPE was rejected by the Minister , who considered that the applicant was not receiving any specialist medical treatment in the GPE and that , moreover , it had not been alleged or demonstrated that adequate medical treatment would not be made available to her in GPE .

An appeal by the applicant against the Minister ’s decision was rejected by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE on DATE . It upheld the Minister ’s decision and reasoning .

A further appeal , together with a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) staying her removal , was lodged by the applicant with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG . On DATE the President of the ORG granted the request for a provisional measure , deferring the applicant ’s transfer to GPE pending the outcome of the further appeal proceedings .

On DATE the ORG allowed the further appeal . It quashed the judgment of DATE , as well as the Minister ’s decision , as it found that he had failed to have due regard to the general reports submitted by the applicant concerning the situation of asylum - seekers in GPE , which might be relevant to the applicant ’s individual case . As to the merits of the case , the ORG found that the reports submitted by the applicant were insufficient to assume that her transfer to GPE would result in a violation of LAW due to the general living conditions of asylum - seekers in that country . Furthermore , as the applicant had been granted a residence permit in GPE earlier , she was not at risk of expulsion to her country of origin . The ORG ordered that the legal consequences of the refusal of the applicant ’s asylum request should be maintained .

No further appeal lay against that decision . On an unspecified date the applicant was informed that she and her child would be placed in an GPE detention centre ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) for removal purposes .

The application was lodged with the ORG on DATE , and on DATE the applicant asked the ORG to issue an interim measure within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE , in reply to questions put to them under LAW ( a ) , ORG informed ORG of practical aspects of the applicant ’s scheduled transfer to GPE . A copy of that reply was sent to the applicant for information .

On DATE the President of the Section decided , under Rule DATE , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable , in the interests of the parties and of the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , not to expel the applicant to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the President of the Section decided that ORG should be invited , under Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL , to answer factual questions about the applicant ’s situation in GPE when she had lived there previously and about the general accommodation , subsistence and medical care offered to asylum - seekers in GPE .

The Government of GPE submitted their answers on DATE . The applicant ’s comments in reply were received on DATE . Additional information was received from ORG on DATE . A copy was sent to ORG and the applicant for information .

On DATE additional factual questions were put to ORG about the practical effects given to the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of LOC v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .

In their reply of DATE , ORG indicated DATE following the LOC judgment and where a case concerned the transfer of a family with minor children to GPE – the GPE authorities would only transfer such a family after guarantees had been obtained from the NORP authorities that the family would remain together , and where information was available about the specific facility where the family was to be accommodated , in order to guarantee that the conditions there were age - appropriate in respect of the children . For this reason , the actual transfer to GPE would be announced DATE beforehand , in order to give the NORP authorities the opportunity to provide information on the specific facility where the family was to be accommodated , to guarantee that the conditions in this facility were suitable , and to guarantee that the family would not be split up . If these guarantees were not received within the time - limit for transfers , as laid down in the Dublin Regulation , the persons involved would be channelled into the GPE asylum procedure . However , as long as a Rule CARDINAL indication was in place , the Government were not in a position to commence the preparations for the applicant ’s transfer to GPE .

The applicant ’s comments in reply were submitted on DATE . Having noted those submissions , the ORG decided to lift the Rule CARDINAL indication on DATE .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG submitted a copy of a circular letter dated DATE and sent by ORG of the NORP ORG ( GPE dell GPE ) to the GPE Units of the other member GPE of ORG , in which ORG set out the new policy of the NORP authorities on transfers to GPE of families with small children . The relevant part of ORG letter reads :

“ A new policy was considered necessary in view of the fact that reception facilities , specifically reserved for such families , frequently remained unavailed of as a result of families having left for an unknown destination prior to transfer , or having obtained a court order barring their transfer . In order to safeguard appropriate facilities where families may stay together , the NORP authorities earmarked a total of CARDINAL places , distributed over CARDINAL projects under ORG ( ORG ) . The authorities confirmed that this number will be extended should the need arise . As may be inferred from the letter of DATE , this comprehensive guarantee is intended to avoid the need for guarantees in specific cases .

ORG will continue to inform its NORP counterpart at an early stage of an intended transfer of a family with minor children . On DATE , the NORP , NORP and NORP migration liaison officers to GPE issued a report on ORG in general , including on the requirements the accommodations must fulfil , and on CARDINAL projects they had visited on the invitation of ORG . It is understood that DATE also ORG ( ORG ) will report on the matter .

The Government is of the opinion that the new NORP policy will adequately safeguard that families with minor children are kept together in accommodations appropriate to their needs . ”

On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the applicant ’s transfer to GPE under LAW had been scheduled for DATE , that the NORP authorities had been informed that the transfer concerned a single mother with a minor child , and that , with the applicant ’s permission , due reference had been made to her medical condition and the treatment required . They also submitted a copy of a letter of CARDINAL DATE from ORG , ORG , received by ORG of ORG ( Immigratie- en ORG ) via e - mail as a document titled “ Tarakhel Garanzie – [ the applicant ’s name ] ” . The letter stated , inter alia , “ We assure you that , after the transfer to GPE , this family group will be accommodated in a manner adapted to the age of the children and the family members will be kept together ” . The letter enclosed a note from ORG , detailing a reception project regarding the transfer of the applicant and her child .

ORG further submitted a copy of the standard form – prescribed under LAW ( ORG ) no . MONEY of ORG and of ORG by which the NORP authorities had been notified on DATE of the applicant ’s transfer to GPE , scheduled for DATE . It was indicated in that form that the applicant had health problems and that a medical report was attached to the form . The GPE official completing the form also noted :

“ Since this transfer concerns a mother with a minor child , I assume this family will be accommodated in CARDINAL of the centres included in the list of ORG - projects as mentioned in the annex to your letter dated DATE . ”

NORP The applicant ’s comments on the Government ’s submissions of CARDINAL and DATE were submitted on DATE . On DATE she asked the ORG to issue a fresh indication under LAW , submitting that the information provided by ORG contained only general guarantees , which were insufficient to ensure that she and her child would be provided with suitable accommodation and adequate medical care in GPE , emphasising her special needs as a HIV - positive person . The applicant further contended that the CARDINAL places in ORG projects which were earmarked for families with minor children were far from sufficient , taking into account the high number of migrants having arrived in GPE in DATE . The applicant argued that , without individual and specific guarantees , she ran a considerable risk of ending up living on the streets , without the special care she and her child needed .

Having noted the parties’ submissions , on DATE the President of the Section decided to reject the applicant ’s fresh Rule CARDINAL request .

No further information about the current whereabouts of the applicant and her child has been submitted .

The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC v. GPE ( cited above , § § DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL & CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and § § DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , DATE ) ; ORG and NORP v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS ( UNAIDS ) estimated that in DATE a total of CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) persons aged DATE or more with HIV or AIDS were living in GPE , of whom CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) were women . According to a comparative study carried out by ORG ) – covering CARDINAL ORG member GPE and published in DATE on the question of whether undocumented migrants and asylum - seekers are entitled to access health care in ORG , asylum - seekers in GPE are entitled to access health care on equal grounds as NORP nationals with regard to coverage and conditions . The same applies for unaccompanied children .

An information brochure on access to ORG by non - ORG nationals , published ( in LANGUAGE , among other languages ) by ORG , Migrazione e Povertà ) of ORG , and provided to asylum - seekers and undocumented migrants , states that asylum - seekers have a statutory right to registration in ORG ( ORG ) system and to be provided with an ORG health insurance card . It further reads :

“ Asylum or international protection seekers are exempted from the co - pay fee following the statement of indigence . This principle is valid DATE following the submittal of the asylum application . As of DATE , asylum seekers are entitled to work . In order to notify their status of unemployment , they need to register with ORG and obtain the exemption card for low - income reasons . ”