Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The opposition planned to hold demonstrations on CARDINAL DATE and DATE in GPE .

On DATE , the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , about the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that no prior notice was given to the ORG by the organisers of the demonstration of DATE . Information about that assembly was disseminated through ORG or the press .

The ORG refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE , stating in general terms that that assembly was not in accordance with ORG . The ORG further stated that the square where the organisers proposed to hold the assembly was a designated public leisure area and that the assembly itself was impractical .

Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of GPE .

According to the applicant , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were demanding democratic reforms in the country and protesting against impediments to freedom of assembly . The participants of the demonstration of DATE were condemning the use of force by the police against participants of previous demonstrations .

The applicant attended both demonstrations , but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse them . In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station , where he was questioned . According to the applicant , in the first case he was arrested by people in plain clothes .

NORP In both cases on DATE of the applicant ’s arrest , an “ administrativeoffence report ” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was issued in respect of him . In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order from the police , the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) . In the second case the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under LAW ( participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law ) .

According to the applicant , he was never served with copies of the administrative - offence reports or with other documents from his case files . In neither case was he given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody .

NORP In both cases the applicant was brought before FAC on DATE of his arrest , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively .

According to the applicant , the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief . Members of the public were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .

According to the applicant , in neither case was he given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice .

The record of the court hearing in the first case shows that the applicant declared that he did not need legal assistance and would defend himself in person .

At the court hearing in the second case a ORG - funded lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant . According to documents submitted by the ORG , the applicant refused the assistance of that lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .

At the hearing in the first case the court did not question any witnesses . In the second case the court questioned CARDINAL police officers . The police officers testified that they had arrested the applicant because he had staged an unauthorised demonstration .

NORP In both cases the first - instance court found that the applicant had participated in an unauthorised demonstration .

In the first case , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the firstinstance court convicted the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ “ administrative ” detention . In the second case , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court convicted the applicant under LAW ORG and sentenced him to a fine of CARDINAL manats ( AZN ) .

On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals before ORG , arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the demonstrations in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first - instance courts had not been fair .

In the first case the applicant was assisted before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice . In the second case he was not represented by a lawyer .

NORP In both cases , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court .


Revision rejected (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Paul Mahoney;Síofra O’Leary

The cases of ORG .

General remarks

The applicant Government have submitted the cases of CARDINAL persons in which the use of the QUANTITY techniques and sometimes also other forms of ill - treatment were alleged . The ORG has examined the illustrative cases of ORG . The allegations in regard to T.CARDINAL concern both the CARDINAL techniques and other forms of alleged ill - treatment , whereas the allegations in regard to T.CARDINAL concern the CARDINAL techniques only .

Both cases were among the CARDINAL cases investigated by ORG . However , neither T.CARDINAL nor T.CARDINAL had given evidence before that ORG , which based its findings on the oral evidence of the persons who supervised the operations at the centre and of the medical officer who was stationed there , as well as on various medical records , colour photographs and the feeding record ( cf . ORG , paras . CARDINAL and DATE , at p. CARDINAL ) .

The Delegates of the Commission heard both case witnesses who gave their evidence in detail and were also cross - examined by the respondent Government . They had before them extracts from the medical officer ’s journal at FAC , the medical examination records on arrival and on departure from the interrogation centre and colour photographs of T.CARDINAL as well as various reports by psychiatrists who also gave oral evidence .

However , the Delegates were not able to hear oral evidence from members of the security forces in relation to the allegations concerning the interrogation centre . In the first place no witnesses who had been present at that centre were made available . Secondly , the respondent Government stated at the hearing of witnesses at FAC in DATE that all of their witnesses had now been instructed not to reply to any questions regarding the CARDINAL techniques and their use on the ground that the use of these techniques had been discontinued and that there were security considerations involved . This ‘ embargo’ on the evidence also related to matters connected with a ‘ FAC held in GPE in DATE by ORG for members of the ORG [ ORG ] , where the use of the techniques was taught orally ( cf . ORG , ORG , para . CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL ; also Witness CARDINAL G at VR CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) .

The ORG does not consider it necessary to pursue this matter any further . It is satisfied that the CARDINAL methods in aid of interrogation which , as a matter of public record , were used in emergency situations at various other places before they were used in GPE in DATE ( see ORG , Majority Report , para . CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL [ .. ] ) were applied to the CARDINAL case witnesses in the present case . It is further satisfied that a ‘ ORG as described was held in DATE by ORG .

Course of events

The evidence before the Commission bears out the allegations made by the case witnesses and confirms the findings of ORG as regards the course of the events for the persons subjected to the CARDINAL techniques .

T.CARDINAL and T.CARDINAL were , together with others , arrested in TIME of CARDINAL August DATE and brought to ORG , being CARDINAL of the CARDINAL ORG set up to receive arrested persons . They were held there for DATE and , having been selected for special interrogation were brought , on DATE , to the unknown interrogation centre . On arrival at the centre they were medically examined and at CARDINAL stage they were taken by helicopter to another place where they were served with a detention order . They were taken back to the centre where they were interrogated in depth being subjected to the CARDINAL techniques in the following way :

a. Wall - standing – the witnesses demonstrated how they were spreadeagled against the wall , with their fingers put high above the head against the wall , the legs spread apart and the feet back , causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers ( the stress position ) . They were forced to remain in this position . The exact length of time during which the witnesses were required to stand could not be established . Both witnesses said that they lost their sense of time but that it must have been TIME . ORG while describing the position as being a different one , found that T.CARDINAL had been against the wall during periods totalling TIME , and TIME .

b. Hooding – a black or navy coloured bag was put over the ORG heads . Initially it was kept there all the time , except during interrogations , but later PERSON was allowed to take it off when he was alone in the room , provided that he turned his face to the wall .

c. Noise – pending interrogations the witnesses were held in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise .

d. Sleep DATE pending interrogations the witnesses were deprived of sleep , but it was not possible to establish for what periods each witness had been without sleep .

e. ORG and drink – the witnesses were subjected to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations . It was not possible to establish to what extent they were deprived of nourishment and whether or not they were offered food and drink but refused to take it .

The witnesses were at the centre from DATE , when they were transferred to FAC in accordance with the detention order .

In DATE T.CARDINAL and T.CARDINAL instituted domestic proceedings to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment and for assault and their claims were settled in DATE and DATE respectively for £ MONEY and £ CARDINAL .

Physical and mental effects resulting from the use of the techniques

( i ) Physical effects

The ORG is satisfied from the evidence given that the witnesses suffered loss of weight resulting from their detention at the unknown interrogation centre and from the use of the CARDINAL techniques . It is furthermore established that , particularly the wallstanding technique , caused physical pain while it was being applied , but that the pain ceased when the person was no longer in that position .

( ii ) Mental effects

The witnesses themselves described feelings of anxiety and fear , as well as disorientation and isolation during the time they were subjected to the techniques and afterwards . However , the intensity of such sensations was different in respect of T.CARDINAL than in respect of T.CARDINAL , as a result of differences in their personality . Consequently , T.CARDINAL had been more strongly affected by the application of the techniques than T.CARDINAL .

On the other hand , the psychiatrists disagreed considerably on the after - effects of the treatment and on the prognosis for recovery . Professors PERSON and NORP considered that both witnesses would continue for a long time to have considerable disability shown by bouts of depression , insomnia and a generally neurotic condition resembling that found in victims of NORP persecution . PERSON . CARDINAL and CARDINAL considered that the acute psychiatric symptoms developed by the witnesses during the interrogation had been minor and that their persistence was the result of everyday life in GPE for an ex - detainee carrying out his work travelling to different localities . In no sense could the witnesses’ experiences be compared with those of the victims of NORP persecution .

On the basis of this evidence the ORG is unable to establish the exact degree of the psychiatric after - effects which the use of the CARDINAL techniques might have had on these witnesses or generally on persons subjected to them . It is satisfied , however , that , depending on the personality of the person concerned , the circumstances in which he finds himself , and the conditions of everyday life in GPE at the relevant time , some after - effects resulting from the application of the techniques can not be excluded .

Findings of the Commission

The CARDINAL techniques in aid of interrogation were used in DATE on ORG . They were applied prior to , between and during interrogations , but not after interrogation was terminated . This means that the persons concerned were subject to the techniques during CARDINAL , possibly DATE . The exact times could not be established . The Commission is satisfied the total periods during which the CARDINAL witnesses were at the wall , [ were ] TIME respectively . A certain degree of force was used to make the detainees stand at the wall in the required posture which caused physical pain and exhaustion . The posture required was a stress position and not a normal position required to search a person , although it can not be considered to be proved that the enforced stress position lasted all the time they were at the wall .

No physical injury resulted from the application of the techniques as such , but it caused mentally a number of acute psychiatric symptoms . It can not be excluded that in certain persons some of these symptoms continue to exist for some time afterwards .

The damages granted to them under settlements in court are substantial sums and , although it is not possible in any settlement to say what part was paid with a view to what claim , it may be presumed that the greater part of the sum was awarded in view of the allegations of ill - treatment including the application of the CARDINAL techniques , having regard to sums normally awarded by courts for claims of assault as compared with sums normally granted for claims of wrongful imprisonment .


CASE OF VASILEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE , while criminal proceedings were pending against a certain Mr GPE , the latter sold a lorry ( “ the lorry ” ) to a company , M.

On DATE ORG ( “ the Trial Court ” ) convicted PERSON of smuggling QUANTITY of sugar , which he had transported in the lorry in DATE . According to the Government , the court dismissed the prosecutor ’s application to have the lorry confiscated , given that Mr GPE had stated that he had already sold it . The court considered that the conditions for confiscation of the lorry under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been fulfilled : specifically it had not been established that the lorry could be used again to commit an offence ; that the confiscation had been necessary for the protection of safety or for reasons of ethics ; and that the lorry had been specially adjusted for the commission of specific type of offences . On DATE , following separate appeals by ORG and the public prosecutor , ORG found the public prosecutor ’s application immaterial ( беспредметна ) and quashed all aspects of this judgment .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON in absentia . It fined him and ordered , under LAW , the confiscation of the lorry and the sugar ( “ the confiscation order ” ) . In the absence of an appeal , the judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the company ORG sold the lorry to the applicant , who later registered the lorry in his name .

On DATE ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) enforced the confiscation order of CARDINAL DATE against the applicant and issued a record of enforcement ( записник за извршување ) .

On DATE the applicant objected to the enforcement of the confiscation order , arguing that Mr I.A. had died on DATE and that the confiscation order accordingly could not be enforced . There had been no injunction restricting the sale of the lorry . He had been the lawful owner and he had been making his living using the lorry . Lastly , he stated that he had sought , in separate civil proceedings , return of the lorry ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the execution - of - sanctions judge of ORG rejected the objection as inadmissible , finding that the applicant had no procedural standing . It found that the confiscation order had been enforced in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further found that the applicant , as the third person from whom the lorry had been confiscated , could assume his rights under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant appealed . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal reiterating that he had no right to object to the enforcement of the confiscation order . However , he had been entitled to claim , in civil proceedings , return of the lorry . Civil courts had jurisdiction , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , to reverse a final confiscation order issued in criminal proceedings and order the return of the confiscated item .

On DATE the applicant submitted a civil claim seeking that the first - instance court declare him to be the owner of the lorry and to order the ORG to restore it to his possession . In the case of failure of his first claim , he sought that the ORG would reimburse him for the upgrades made to the lorry . In this latter context , he identified the upgrades that he had installed in the lorry . He further maintained that he was the bona fide and lawful owner of the lorry . He argued that the authorities had failed to seize the lorry immediately after the offence had been committed ( на лице место ) and to note a ban on the sale of the lorry on its registration certificate . As he was making his living off the lorry , he requested an injunction restricting the ORG from selling or otherwise disposing of the lorry until the final resolution of the dispute .

By decisions of DATE and DATE respectively , the first - instance court and ORG ( “ the second - instance court ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s application for an injunction finding no evidence that in the absence of such a measure his claim would be considerably affected or that he would sustain irreparable damage .

On DATE the applicant informed the first - instance court that Mr GPE had died in GPE in DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It established that Mr GPE , who knew that the lorry could have been confiscated , had sold it to the company QUANTITY At the relevant time , neither the manager of PERSON nor the applicant had known that the lorry had been used in the commission of the offence and that it had been subject to a confiscation order . Relying on Articles DATE and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , the court stated that :

“ Confiscation is a safety measure , the typical aim of which is to remove conditions which are convenient for the commission of offences , and it is a condition for ordering such a measure that the offender has been sentenced , as in the present case . The court considers that it is mandatory to confiscate the [ lorry ] under the afore - mentioned provisions , because this safety measure has a wider influence [ in the sense of ] general deterrence of all future offenders of this type of offences , and otherwise the offenders would be encouraged , after the offence has been committed , to dispose of the means with which they committed the offence and , thus , to even acquire pecuniary benefit ; furthermore that would have a negative influence on the ethics of the wider public , [ that is to say ] on general deterrence ...

... Given that from the evidence and the above - mentioned statutory provisions it has been established that the [ lorry ] in question was confiscated in favour of [ the respondent ORG ] in lawful proceedings , the court finds that the [ respondent ORG ] has therein obtained ownership of the [ lorry ] in question on the basis of a final and enforceable judgment ... in accordance with sections DATE ) and CARDINAL of the [ Property Act . ]

For these reasons , the court dismisses the [ applicant ’s ] main claim and also the alternative claim , because it concerns upgrades made to the [ lorry ] .

On the other hand , the court considers that the [ applicant ] , as the bona fide owner , can be indemnified for the value of the entire [ lorry ] , including the upgrades , but solely from the offender , [ Mr GPE ] , in accordance with LAW ] , and not from the [ respondent ORG ] ...

The court dismisses as groundless the argument that at the moment of confiscation of the [ lorry ] in question it was not owned by [ Mr GPE ] but by the [ applicant ] as the bona fide possessor ( совесен владетел ) , given that from the evidence it was established that when the offence was committed the [ lorry ] was owned by [ Mr GPE ] and the safety measure confiscation of the [ lorry ] was issued on those grounds . The court also considers groundless the [ applicant ’s ] representative ’s arguments that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the final decision for confiscation of the [ lorry ] could be amended with a decision in civil proceedings if there were a dispute concerning the ownership of the confiscated items , given that this provision would have been applied if the [ lorry ] had been sold to the [ applicant ] before the offence was committed and had , under any legal basis , remained in the factual possession of the convicted [ Mr GPE ] and he , after having sold it , committed the crime ; but in the present case it is vice versa ; firstly the offence was committed and then the [ lorry ] was sold . ”

The court also established that the applicant had upgraded the lorry to the value of MONEY ( MKD ) . Furthermore , on the basis of the applicant ’s and CARDINAL witnesses’ statements , the court established that the applicant had bought the lorry for QUANTITY ( ORG ) .

The applicant appealed . He stated that he had previously requested that the first - instance court obtain evidence from ORG which would confirm that Mr I.A. had died in GPE in DATE . He argued that the domestic authorities had failed to ban Mr GPE from disposing of the lorry or to seize the lorry at the time the offence had been discovered . He also argued that he was the bona fide owner and that he had obtained title to the lorry by adverse possession ( одршка ) . The first - instance court had incorrectly applied section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . The lorry had been confiscated DATE after the offence had been committed . The ORG had been unlawfully enriched by the value of the upgrades installed by the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( “ the second - instance court ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons given by the lower court . On DATE this judgment was served on the applicant .


Violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the ORG in GPE found the applicant guilty of kicking a police officer while intoxicated , an offence under LAW ) of LAW , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . ORG explained the decision to impose a custodial sentence in the following manner :

“ When sentencing the defendant , PERSON , the court takes into account the nature and degree of the social danger of the offence , all the , and the information regarding the defendant ’s personality : [ he ] has never incurred any criminal or administrative liability , he is not registered [ as a drug addict or as a person suffering from psychotic disorders ] , he was given positive references by his neighbours and employers , [ and ] his military registration has been annulled because of a kidney disease . The court accepts the above - mentioned circumstances as mitigating the defendant ’s guilt ; however , it does not find any grounds for sentencing [ him ] to probation or imposing a fine on him , given the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and the fact that [ he ] does not have a permanent place of residence in GPE or in the GPE Region ” .

The applicant appealed , claiming in particular that he had been discriminated against by the trial court ’s refusal to impose a non - custodial sentence on the grounds that he did not have a permanent residence in GPE or in LOC , even though there had existed circumstances calling for the mitigation of his sentence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It held , in a summary fashion , that the trial court had complied with every legal requirement and had issued a reasoned judgment , having sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment .


Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy)

Aleš Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Ksenija Turković

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

The applicants were all reservists who had been drafted by ORG in connection with ORG intervention in GPE . They remained in military service DATE , and were thus entitled to a certain per diem under the Rules on Travel and Other Expenses in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and by virtue of CARDINAL separate decisions ( nos . CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) adopted by its Chief of Staff on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

NORP However , following the demobilisation the Government allegedly refused to honour their obligation to the reservists , including the applicants .

NORP The reservists subsequently organised a series of public protests , some of which ended in open confrontation with the police . Ultimately , following protracted negotiations , on DATE the Government reached an agreement with some of the reservists ( “ the Agreement ” ) , in particular those residing in the municipalities of GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , whereby these reservists were guaranteed payment in CARDINAL DATE instalments . This payment was to be effected through their respective municipalities , aggregate sums having been specified per municipality . The said municipalities were apparently chosen because of their “ underdeveloped ” status , implying the reservists’ indigence . For their part , the reservists in question agreed to renounce all their outstanding claims based on their military service in DATE which were still pending before the civil courts , as well as any other claim in this connection . It was , lastly , stipulated that the criteria for the distribution of the “ financial aid ” in question should be set out by a Commission consisting of local government representatives and the representatives of the reservists themselves .

The applicants , like all other reservists without a registered residence in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL municipalities in question , could not benefit from the Agreement .

On DATE the applicants therefore filed a civil claim against the respondent ORG based on the regulations referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above . In their submissions , they pointed inter alia to the discrimination resulting from the Agreement . By way of redress ( tužbeni zahtev ) , the applicants requested the payment of specific sums on account of the per diems in question , as well as certain other benefits , without relying on any anti - discrimination provision – domestic or international – or otherwise referring to the issue of discrimination .

On DATE ORG of First Instance ( PERSON ) ruled against the applicants . In so doing , it acknowledged that their claim had a valid legal basis but noted , as pointed out by the respondent , that the applicable prescription period had been DATE as of their demobilisation , in accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The applicants’ claim had thus been filed out of time .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment , complaining about various procedural violations allegedly committed at first instance , the failure of the court in question to properly establish all of the relevant facts , and the erroneous application of the applicable prescription periods . The applicants also referred to the Agreement , in so far as other reservists had thus resolved their problem without litigation , but they did not rely on any anti - discrimination provision , domestic or international .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the impugned judgment on appeal , and it thereby became final . In its reasoning the court stated , inter alia , that the per diems had indeed “ only been partly paid ” by ORG ( ORG odbrane ) but that both the DATE and the DATE prescription periods provided for in section QUANTITY of LAW had already elapsed before the applicants had filed their civil claim ( see paragraph DATE below ) . ORG considered the Agreement as having no bearing on the matter since the applicants had sought payment of the sums owed to them on a different legal basis .

Having been served with ORG decision , on DATE the applicants lodged a further appeal ( ustavna žalba ) with ORG ( Ustavni sud ) . Relying on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW , they complained about the fairness of the civil proceedings and the erroneous application of the relevant domestic law , including the provisions concerning prescription . The applicants also maintained that the impugned judgment of ORG was inconsistent with numerous judgments adopted by other appellate courts in GPE – that is the district courts ( okružni sudovi ) while they existed , as well as the high courts and the courts of appeal ( viši i apelacioni sudovi ) thereafter DATE which on the same facts had applied a longer , DATE , prescription period and ruled in favour of the plaintiffs ( see section CARDINAL of LAW , in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Lastly , the applicants mentioned the Agreement and the ORG ’s subsequent decision endorsing it , but did not elaborate on their substance and⁄or impact .

On DATE , following the adoption of the judgment by ORG in the present case , ORG ruled in favour of the applicants as regards their complaints of inconsistent domestic case - law in respect of the civil courts’ application of the statutory time - limitation ( the same complaints the ORG had rejected as manifestly ill - founded – see paragraphs CARDINAL of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) , but made no mention of the Agreement . ORG accordingly found a violation of LAW . It ordered that its decision be published in ORG , deeming this sufficient redress in a situation where the civil courts had , despite the said inconsistency , applied the relevant substantive law based on a “ constitutionally acceptable interpretation ” thereof . For more detailed reasoning , ORG referred to its decision of DATE concerning the same issue in another case involving different appellants ( Už . CARDINAL ) .

The Constitutional Court ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE referred , inter alia , to the inconsistent case - law in question , citing specific judgments irrespective of the time - frame , and found a violation of the appellants’ right to equal protection before the courts as guaranteed under LAW . ORG was of the opinion that the courts of last instance , by ruling differently on the validity of claims based on identical facts and law , had placed appellants whose claims had been rejected in a materially different position from that of claimants whose claims had been allowed . There had accordingly been a violation of LAW . However , ORG considered that the allegations before it presented no constitutional basis upon which it could establish a violation of the appellants’ right to a fair trial in so far as they complained about procedural fairness and the civil ORG allegedly inadequate characterisation of the legal nature of their claims . The ORG additional complaint , raised under LAW , was also rejected . In particular , there was no evidence to corroborate the claim that the first- and second - instance court decisions in the appellants’ civil case had been rendered on the basis of any “ personal qualities ” , this being a precondition for determining the existence of a violation of the principle of non - discrimination . ORG took note of ORG finding of CARDINAL DATE of a violation of the prohibition of discrimination under LAW in conjunction with LAW No . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; for additional constitutional case - law to this effect , see decision Už . CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as well as decisions Už . CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL and Už . CARDINAL , both of CARDINAL DATE , in their relevant parts ) , but for reasons that were different from those stated in this particular constitutional appeal . The fact that the latter complaint had been dismissed did not affect the ORG ’s obligation to act in accordance with ORG decision in respect of all persons , including the appellants , whose war per diems had not been paid out .

DATE and DATE first - instance and appellate courts across GPE ruled both in favour of reservists in a situation comparable to that of the applicants and against them , relying on DATE or DATE prescription periods respectively ( for examples of cases where the reservists were successful see , among numerous others , GPE ORG judgments PERSON . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively ) .

In the meantime , in DATE and DATE ORG had adopted CARDINAL legal opinions ( pravna shvatanja ) , both of which implied that the applicable prescription period should be DATE pursuant to section QUANTITY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE and DATE various appellate courts substantively ruled in compliance with ORG opinions of DATE and DATE ( see , for example , ORG decision Gž . CARDINAL of DATE ; ORG decisions PERSON . CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; ORG decisions PERSON . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ; and ORG of Appeal decisions Gž . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

DATE and DATE there were also a number of decisions where appellate courts ruled against the reservists , albeit on a different ground . Their claims , unlike those of the applicants in the present case , were rejected as being administrative in nature and as such falling outside the competence of the civil courts ( see GPE ORG decision Gž . CARDINAL of DATE , and ORG decisions PERSON . TIME , CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL and CARDINAL⁄CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively ) .

On DATE the Government endorsed the Agreement , and decided to pay the municipalities in question the amounts specified therein .

On DATE the Government set up a working group tasked with addressing the requests of all other reservists , that is to say those not resident in the CARDINAL municipalities mentioned above . However , having discussed the issue with various groups of reservists , this working group ultimately concluded that their demands were not acceptable , inter alia because : ( a ) they had not harmonised or specified their requests ; ( b ) some of their representatives had had dubious standing to represent them ; ( c ) there was a lack of ORG funds which could be used for this purpose ; and ( d ) in most cases , war per diems had already been paid to the reservists .

On DATE the Commissioner for ORG ) , an Ombudsman - type office established on the basis of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , considered the complaints brought by an organisation representing the interests of reservists in a situation comparable to that of the applicants . She concluded that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their registered residence , that is as non - residents of the CARDINAL privileged municipalities , and recommended that the Government take all necessary measures in order to ensure that all reservists were afforded the payments recognised by their decision of DATE . The Government were also invited to provide the Commissioner with an appropriate “ action plan ” within DATE . In its reasoning , the Commissioner ’s decision noted , inter alia , that the payments in question were per diems , notwithstanding that the Government had chosen to consider them as social benefits awarded to persons in need ( socijalna pomoć ) , and that this was best exemplified by the fact that the reservists in question had had to renounce their legal claims concerning the per diems , as well as the fact that the individual reservists resident in the CARDINAL municipalities in issue were never under an obligation to prove their indigence ( imovinsko stanje i socijalnu ugroženost ) . This being so , there was clearly no objective and reasonable justification for the differential treatment of reservists merely on the basis of their place of residence .

On DATE ORG ( Ministarstvo rada i socijalne politike ) noted that discussions should continue with the various groups of reservists and that , if possible , financial support should be offered to the most indigent among them .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case)

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

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

The applicant and his family are of NORP ethnic origin . They live in the Chastoozerskiy district of LOC ( also called PERSON ) . According to the applicant , at the time of the events in question the population of the NORP district constituted CARDINAL persons , of whom CARDINAL were of NORP origin .

The applicant submitted that attitudes towards the NORP minority had worsened after DATE , when the second armed conflict in GPE had started . CARDINAL NORP nationalist organisations were particularly active in LOC ( ORG ) and ORG ( RNKA ) .

It appears from the applicant ’s statements and other documents that prior to CARDINAL DATE there was a conflict between individuals involving NORP . This was perceived by some as mounting ethnic tension in the district . In particular , the applicant claimed that a resident of PERSON , PERSON PERSON , the manager of a sausage factory in PERSON , and PERSON PERSON , a boxing coach from PERSON , had invited the NORP community and some nationalist NORP groups to meet to “ settle the dispute ” on DATE . Pursuant to a statement of DATE given by ORG , who calls himself “ the spiritual leader of the NORP ” , on DATE he had transmitted this information to the district prosecutor and the head of the administration in order that measures could be taken with a view to maintaining law and order ( see below ) .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE a group of police officers was deployed on the main road of PERSON , near the sausage factory . At TIME this group stopped the applicant ’s car , in which there were also CARDINAL other NORP men from PERSON , PERSON S .- A.B. and PERSON U.B. Their vehicle was inspected , together with their documents . The car then proceeded to Mr S .- A.B. ’s house at no . DATE Marx Street .

At TIME CARDINAL cars – a white and a red ORG and a PERSON DATE passed the same police officers and stopped in front of the house . CARDINAL men , including Mr PERSON , got out of the cars and invited the applicant and PERSON PERSON to get into the cars and accompany them . When they refused , CARDINAL of the men shot the applicant in CARDINAL knee , and then in the other knee , with an airgun . They then beat the CARDINAL men with baseball bats , as a result of which the applicant ’s right arm was broken .

The applicant was left on the road in front of Mr S .- A.B. ’s house , while Mr GPE was forced into the PERSON and driven to the sausage factory . There was a crowd of CARDINAL men there , including the manager PERSON PERSON ; they beat PERSON GPE with metal rods , baseball bats and pipes . During the beatings the crowd shouted nationalist and anti - NORP slogans . The police eventually intervened and set PERSON FAC free . DATE the applicant and Mr FAC were taken to the local hospital by Mr D.A. The applicant did not submit any medical documents to the ORG , but the criminal investigation ( see below ) cited CARDINAL forensic expert reports describing his and PERSON U.B. ’s injuries .

It appears that other incidents not involving the applicant directly took place DATE in PERSON . A group of men of NORP ethnic origin remained in the forest near the village ; in TIME of DATE the police rounded them up and found weapons and home - made explosive devices . This group was taken to the district police department ( ROVD ) by officers of the police special forces ( ORG ) . They were released after they had spent TIME at the police station where , allegedly , they had also been beaten and insulted .

The applicant submitted a list of the documents contained in criminal investigation file no . DATE and extracts from ( not copies of ) some of the documents . According to his notes , by DATE the case file contained CARDINAL pages of documents in CARDINAL volumes . The Government did not contest the applicant ’s description of the investigation , but supplemented it with information on later developments . The most relevant information may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the PERSON opened a criminal investigation under LAW , part CARDINAL , ( intentional infliction of serious injuries committed by a group of persons or as a result of conspiracy ) .

On DATE the head of ORG of the ORG set up a group of CARDINAL police investigators to work on the case .

DATE and DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on QUANTITY occasions . Following the applicant ’s latest complaint , on DATE the decision of DATE adjourning the investigation was quashed and the case was sent for further processing to the police investigation department of LOC . The prosecutor ’s office letter of the same date acknowledged that the applicant had not been timeously informed of the decision to adjourn the case in DATE .

On DATE the investigation was again suspended , since the perpetrators could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant was questioned and granted victim status .

On DATE the applicant submitted a written statement to ORG ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) , describing the events of CARDINAL DATE and asking for a criminal investigation to be carried out into the incident in which he had sustained his injuries . In his statement the applicant named Mr. S.K. as CARDINAL of the perpetrators and the owner of the PERSON vehicle .

Mr GPE was questioned on DATE ; on DATE he was additionally questioned and granted victim status . He named Mr. PERSON , the sausage factory manager , as one of the persons present at the factory during his ill - treatment , and PERSON PERSON as the owner of the car in which he had been transported . He also described several other attackers in some detail , including a Mr PERSON . P.

On DATE a forensic expert found that Mr GPE was suffering from the consequences of beatings and that one rib was fractured ; the injuries were therefore moderately serious .

On DATE a forensic expert found that the applicant had suffered CARDINAL gun - shot wounds from pellets in the knees , resulting in fractures of the tibiae ; and a fracture of the right elbow caused by a blow with a blunt instrument . These were described as moderately serious injuries .

In DATE the applicant was again questioned . He described the attack on him , again mentioning Mr TIME as one of the perpetrators . He further stated that PERSON PERSON had gone to GPE and would not be able to identify the other attackers .

On DATE CARDINAL men - local residents of NORP ethnic origin - were questioned by the police . Most of them confirmed that on DATE , after TIME , they had had a pre - arranged meeting with PERSON PERSON During the meeting he had told them that the men who had injured the applicant and PERSON GPE had already left . After the meeting they had gone into the forest to avoid further violence .

On DATE Mr D.A. , the “ spiritual leader of the NORP ” , submitted a written statement to the head of ORG . Mr D.A. described the events of DATE , indicating that at TIME on DATE he had informed the district prosecutor and the head of the administration about the forthcoming gathering of an anti - NORP group in PERSON . He then described the attack on the applicant and PERSON GPE and the subsequent detention and ill - treatment of the NORP men by the police . He asked the police to investigate the crimes committed .

In DATE the investigators questioned a number of other NORP , including the applicant ’s brother . They described the attack on the applicant and the subsequent events of DATE , referring in particular to Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON as active participants in the violence .

On an unspecified date , CARDINAL ethnic NORP men residing in PERSON submitted a complaint to the prosecutor of LOC . They described the events prior to DATE , as well as the attack on the applicant and Mr U.B. They also complained about their detention at the ROVD on TIME DATE , stating that they had been subjected to beatings and insults .

On DATE the investigators questioned a CARDINAL men who had been present at the sausage factory during the events . Some of them stated that they had come to PERSON to spend DATE with Mr. PERSON , to play football and go to the sauna together . Others stated that they had been told by their friends that “ their help was needed ” at a meeting with NORP . Most of them confirmed that a group of CARDINAL men had gathered at the sausage factory in TIME CARDINAL DATE and that they had discussed the conflict involving the local NORP . No one mentioned the incident with the applicant or the beating up of Mr. U.B.

On DATE Mr PERSON identified Mr PERSON . P. in a line - up as one of the men who had attacked him in FAC and then at the sausage factory .

Mr PERSON was questioned on DATE and then again on DATE . During the first questioning he stated that on DATE some of his friends had come to PERSON to spend the weekend together or for business reasons . They had learnt that the NORP were planning a violent confrontation and decided to stay with him . At TIME CARDINAL NORP man had come to the sausage factory and told him that someone had shot at one of his compatriots , but PERSON PERSON had denied any knowledge of this and the man had left . After TIME several cars containing NORP had come to the sausage factory but Mr PERSON and the police who were there had prevented further violence .

During his second questioning PERSON PERSON named several of the men who had come to the sausage factory on DATE , including his brother PERSON D.I. – the factory owner DATE and Mr PERSON . P. He confirmed that he had arranged a meeting with the NORP on DATE in order to “ discuss their behaviour with them ” and that he had invited his friends to attend the meeting “ in order to support him ” . His friends had arrived unarmed . At TIME he had seen a group of men beating Mr FAC in the courtyard of the sausage factory ; he had intervened and stopped the beating . He did not know the men who had been beating Mr FAC cars containing NORP had then arrived and he and the police officers had intervened to prevent further violence . The NORP had then left , taking Mr GPE with them .

In DATE the police compiled a list of CARDINAL men and CARDINAL vehicles that had come to PERSON on DATE in question . Most of the men were questioned in DATE and DATE and confirmed that they had come to PERSON because they had “ heard about problems involving NORP ” , but denied that they had taken part in attacks on the applicant or PERSON U.B.

On DATE Mr PERSON was questioned as a witness . He stated that he had been made aware of the conflict with the NORP by PERSON PERSON but that he had not planned to take part in the meeting arranged for DATE . On TIME he had been driving his car along FAC when he had seen a man lying on the ground and several men standing around . CARDINAL of them , brandishing a gun , had ordered him to take the wounded man to the sausage factory . Mr PERSON did not know these men and would not be able to identify them ; he had then seen them continue to beat the man at the sausage factory and had left immediately . In DATE Mr PERSON was questioned again ; he repeated his previous statements about the attack on the applicant .

On DATE Mr PERSON . PERSON was questioned as witness . He explained that on DATE before DATE , PERSON PERSON had called him and invited to come , with his friends , to a “ rendez - vous ” with NORP in GPE . He then named several men who had come with him from PERSON , and the vehicles in which they had travelled . He confirmed that he had had a baseball bat in the trunk of his car , and that their vehicle had not been inspected by police . Soon after CARDINAL p.m. he had seen a large crowd at the sausage factory , many of them armed with rods and sticks . He had witnessed the crowd beating CARDINAL NORP but denied that he had taken part .

NORP In DATE the applicant identified CARDINAL men , including Mr PERSON . P. , as the perpetrators of the attack .

A police officer from the PERSON ROVD stated that on DATE he had been manning a post on the road near the sausage factory . He and another police officer had searched vehicles for arms , but nothing had been found .

In DATE CARDINAL other police officers confirmed that they had inspected a number of vehicles containing young “ fit - looking ” men which had arrived in PERSON on DATE ; no arms or other dangerous items had been found . Later at the sausage factory one police officer had seen Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON in the crowd ; the latter had behaved in an aggressive manner and incited the crowd .

In DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL local residents . Some of them had seen the PERSON car being driven by PERSON PERSON in FAC . Others had been aware of the “ tensions ” with the NORP and of the “ rendezvous ” on DATE . No one had witnessed the attack on the applicant .

On DATE and DATE the investigators searched FAC and collected cartridges from airguns and pellets . NORP were also extracted from the applicant ’s wounds .

On DATE the premises of the sausage factory were searched , but nothing of relevance was found .

On DATE the police compiled a list of CARDINAL vehicles present in PERSON on DATE of the incident , and of their owners .

On DATE the police examined the place in the forest where the group of NORP men had gathered in TIME of CARDINAL DATE . There they collected metal rods and pipes , wooden sticks , bottles containing inflammable liquid ( gasoline ) , knives , CARDINAL hand pistol and CARDINAL hunting gun . On DATE searches were carried out of the houses of Mr S .- A.B. and another NORP resident in PERSON . A separate criminal investigation was opened on DATE . Its outcome is not known .

In their observations of DATE the Government , without citing or appending any documents from the criminal investigation , also stated that CARDINAL hunting guns had been collected from persons who had come to PERSON upon Mr PERSON ’s invitation . The ballistic expert reports had not linked any of these weapons to the cartridges collected at the site .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office decided not to bring charges of incitement to racially motivated hatred ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) against Mr. PERSON on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act .

On DATE , pursuant to the applicant ’s complaint , that decision was quashed by the ORG prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office again ruled not to open a criminal investigation against Mr. A.I.

In parallel to these proceedings , on DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ruled not to charge Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON with incitement to racially motivated hatred on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act . On DATE that decision was quashed by the ORG prosecutor ’s office and the case was remitted to the district prosecutor ’s office .

In the new round of proceedings , the investigator questioned the applicant , who confirmed his previous statements about Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON ’s roles in the events . Several residents of PERSON denied that they had been called on to take part in the “ disturbances ” against the NORP . Several of the men who had gathered at the sausage factory on DATE denied that they had been invited there by anyone . The head of the district administration confirmed that he had seen ORG flyers prior to CARDINAL DATE , but stated that he had been unaware of their provenance and had not considered them to contain incitements to ethnic violence . On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office again ruled to close the criminal proceedings against Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON for lack of evidence of a crime .

DATE . On DATE that decision was quashed . In the new round of proceedings , the investigator additionally questioned several men who had gathered on DATE at the sausage factory ; all of them stated that they regularly came to PERSON at Mr. PERSON ’s invitation to spend DATE together and that they had not been aware of any incitements to ethnic violence . They had not carried or seen any items which could serve as weapons , such as metal rods or baseball bats , and had not seen any ORG flyers on the factory LOC . On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office ruled not to bring charges against the CARDINAL men . That decision appears not to have been appealed against .

On DATE the investigator of ORG ruled not to open criminal proceedings against persons unknown . The decision was taken in response to a letter from the applicant ’s representative claiming that the applicant ’s injuries had been caused in the context of incitement to ethnic hatred . The decision referred to pending criminal investigation no . DATE and the absence of information on the alleged perpetrators of that crime . It also referred to the fact that no charges had been brought under LAW ( incitement to ethnic or religious hatred ) in the entire LOC in DATE . It appears that the decision was not appealed against .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office decided not to open a criminal investigation into the actions of the ORG servicemen . The decision referred to the conclusions of the preliminary inquiry , according to which the actions of the police officers had been lawful ; no one had sought medical help on DATE in relation to police violence ; no individual complaints about police actions had been lodged between CARDINAL May and DATE .

On DATE the decision was quashed by the ORG prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office again decided not to open a criminal investigation concerning the police ORG actions .

On several occasions the applicant and his representative attempted to lodge complaints with the courts under LAW about failure by the prosecutors to act diligently . Some of the complaints were left without consideration owing to alleged procedural irregularities or because the applicant had failed to indicate the particular actions he was challenging .

On CARDINAL DATE the Chastoozerye ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint about the district prosecutor ’s office ’s failure to supervise the criminal investigation of case no . CARDINAL . The court found that the prosecutor ’s office had taken all possible steps in response to the applicant ’s complaints and that the police investigator had taken all possible steps to identify the perpetrators of the crime , even if those steps had failed to produce a result .

The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , and on DATE ORG quashed ORG ruling and closed the proceedings . It found that the complaint could not be examined by the court on its merits because the applicant had failed to indicate the specific decisions and actions which had infringed his rights . ORG was not competent to replace the prosecutor ’s office or to evaluate the latter ’s work in supervising criminal investigations . The complaint had therefore to be dismissed without examination .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of the Kurgan Region quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) suspending the investigation and forwarded the file to the investigative department of ORG of the Interior . He pointed out that the exact circumstances of the events had not been established , including in relation to PERSON U.B. ’s allegation that PERSON PERSON . PERSON had taken a silver chain off his neck . Although Mr PERSON had identified PERSON PERSON . PERSON and PERSON PERSON as the perpetrators of the crime , no steps had been taken to resolve the serious discrepancies between the statements of PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON . PERSON and PERSON U.B. Nor had proper identification parades or confrontations between them been carried out .

The applicant submitted a number of copies of press articles and flyers concerning the events . A copy of a newspaper edited by the ORG called PERSON ( National Thought ) , issue no . DATE , contained an article in which the events in PERSON were described as a justified reaction by the local population , which was “ enslaved ” and “ occupied ” by “ aliens from the NORP mountains ” . The same newspaper contained an open letter to the Governor of LOC signed by the head of the RNKA . It described the events in PERSON as “ the first call ” of the “ NORP protest ” and invited the Governor to rely on the local ORG in order to maintain peace in the region .

Other publications described the events in PERSON as a major ethnic clash CARDINAL of armed men which had been dispersed by special police forces ( ORG in GPE , DATE , and Strana.ru , DATE ) .

An undated ORG flyer referred to the events in the following way :

“ ... CARDINAL of the predators was hit by a bullet , others were similarly rewarded . ... CARDINAL armed men had come out for a ‘ talk’ with [ CARDINAL ] mountainous jew - predators ... [ thus ] the NORP rises ! Death to the villain ! Hail the heroes ! NORP rule for GPE ! ”


Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is detained at GPE .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other men were tried at ORG before PERSON and a jury . The men were charged with a range of sexual offences against young girls . There were CARDINAL counts in the indictment . The applicant faced charges of : conspiracy with his co - defendants to engage in sexual activity with children ( count CARDINAL in the indictment ) , trafficking within GPE for sexual exploitation ( count CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL counts of rape ( counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , aiding and abetting another to rape ( count CARDINAL ) , and sexual assault ( count CARDINAL ) . His co - defendants faced similar charges .

NORP The media gave extensive coverage to the proceedings . Some , including ORG and ORG , attributed a racial dimension to the case given that the defendants were of NORP origin and the complainants were not . The ORG protested at the preliminary court hearings in the case . For these reasons , prospective jurors who indicated on the jury questionnaire that they were associated with the ORG or EDL were excluded . The trial venue was also moved from PERSON ( where the offences were alleged to have taken place ) to GPE to minimise the effect of that publicity .

At the start of the trial , the trial judge warned the jury not to discuss the case outside of the jury room and to discuss it only with their fellow jurors . He repeated this warning whenever the jury separated .

The jury began their deliberations on CARDINAL DATE . At that time , the judge directed that no verdicts were to be published until all verdicts against all of the defendants had been returned . This was to avoid the jury being subject to pressure from media reports or public demonstrations .

The jury separated at DATE on DATE and resumed their deliberations on DATE In the course of their deliberations on CARDINAL May they sent the trial judge notes asking to be reminded of the accounts given to the police by certain of the complainants in the case . Those notes related to counts CARDINAL , DATE and DATE on the indictment .

DATE , while the jury was deliberating , the applicant , through his counsel , complained to the judge that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL interpreters at the trial had spoken to the press about him . The judge questioned the interpreter who confirmed that she had discussed the applicant ’s demeanour in court with a member of the press but nothing more . The judge then warned both interpreters not to have any communication with the press .

The jury resumed their deliberations on DATE While deliberating they sent further notes either asking to be reminded of the evidence of a complainant or requesting copies of evidence . Those notes related to counts CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of the indictment .

On TIME , counsel informed the judge of CARDINAL postings that had appeared on the internet about the jury ’s deliberations .

At TIME a post appeared on the ORG page of a group called “ Infidels of GPE ” which stated :

“ CARDINAL NORP groomer scum found GUILTY so far at ORG . ”

At TIME FAC , the chairman of the ORG , sent a “ tweet ” on the social media website ORG . It said :

“ Newsflash DATE of the NORP paedophile rapists found guilty in GPE . ”

At TIME the trial judge consulted counsel in private . With the consent of counsel , at TIME he called the jury into court and asked the jury ’s foreman if they had reached any guilty verdicts , and if so , how many . After a series of exchanges , it became clear that the jury had indeed reached guilty verdicts for CARDINAL of the defendants . The precise verdicts – that is , and the counts and defendants to which they related – were not taken at this stage . The jury retired to their room at TIME

Between TIME and TIME sent CARDINAL further tweets appeared casting doubt on the initial claim he had made in his CARDINAL p.m. tweet . The last tweet , however , stated :

“ But people there [ in GPE ] say jury still out on CARDINAL [ defendants ] and others will be sentenced DATE . ”

The jury would not have been aware of any date for sentencing and it had not been mentioned in open court .

The trial judge called the jury back into court and said to them :

“ ... Could I ask all of you to tell me , to assure me , that nothing that you have discussed in the jury room ... can have got out into the world in general ? Nothing ? Nothing whatsoever , by any means whatsoever ? ”

All of the jurors replied “ No . ” The judge then asked :

“ There is n’t any chance of anybody overhearing anything you might have been saying inadvertently outside the jury room ? ”

The jurors again all replied “ No ” .

The judge then consulted counsel in the absence of the jury . He informed them that , in the light of the ORG replies and their demeanour , he intended to proceed on the assumption that they were telling the truth and had acted properly . Defence counsel requested time to make an application for discharge of the jury . The judge , therefore , allowed the jury to separate for TIME , giving them instructions not to consider any news source , whether on the internet , on television or in the newspapers .

On DATE , the judge sat in open court , but imposed reporting restrictions . He rejected the defence ’s application to discharge the jury , concluding that he was satisfied that no juror had communicated the jury ’s deliberations either deliberately or accidentally to anyone else , and therefore questions of bias did not arise . The judge observed that the jury ’s notes indicated that they were adopting a “ perfectly reasonable , logical and unbiased approach to the evidence . ” He did not believe that a message could have been communicated by a juror to the outside during deliberations . The judge also concluded that communication from a juror was not the only possible explanation for the internet postings .

At this time , the judge was also informed of additional posts on a ORG group called “ Infidels of GPE ” that included threatening comments toward the jury if they were to acquit . The judge determined that there was no evidence that the jurors had seen these posts or had felt intimidated by them .

At TIME on DATE the jury returned verdicts on QUANTITY of the CARDINAL counts in the indictment . These verdicts included all of the counts against the applicant , save for the count of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children ( count CARDINAL ) , which the trial judge had advised the jury to leave until last and thus upon which they continued to deliberate . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL verdicts returned at this stage were guilty verdicts ; CARDINAL were not guilty verdicts .

The jury resumed their deliberations on DATE ( DATE ) . DATE , they returned the following verdicts :

( a ) NORP on count CARDINALA on the indictment ( the conspiracy count ) : a unanimous guilty verdict against all of the defendants facing that charge , including the applicant ;

( b ) on count CARDINAL ( an alternative conspiracy count faced by CARDINAL defendants , not including the applicant ) : a unanimous guilty verdict for CARDINAL defendants , a not guilty verdict for another defendant , and the jury were unable to agree on a verdict on this count for a fifth defendant ; and

( c ) NORP on count CARDINAL : a unanimous guilty verdict in respect of the CARDINAL defendant facing this charge .

The jury were then given a “ majority direction ” by the trial judge , allowing them to return majority rather than unanimous verdicts .

DATE ( DATE ) , they returned their remaining verdicts . These were not guilty verdicts on counts CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( counts of rape against certain of the defendants , not including the applicant ) .

In an interview on DATE on ORG , PERSON stated that he had received his information from CARDINAL different people who were outside the courthouse demonstrating . He also tweeted on DATE :

“ ... inaccurate leak re convictions DATE came from a court or police officer , not a juror ... ”

The convicted defendants , including the applicant , lodged appeals against their convictions . ORG directed ORG ( ORG ) to investigate the allegations of jury irregularity .

The ORG appointed a police officer to act as investigator . The investigator asked PERSON to attend a voluntary interview : he declined .

NORP Despite interviewing a possible leader of the “ Infidels of GPE ” group , the ORG was unsuccessful in establishing who had been responsible for the posts on the group ’s ORG page .

Facebook and ORG did not co - operate by disclosing the data relating to the accounts used , and the ORG concluded that , even if the data were disclosed , it would be unlikely to shed light on the source of the information posted on the internet .

The ORG detailed the measures taken to ensure the security of jury deliberations , including the seclusion of the jury in the jury suite at court . All toilet and refreshment facilities were in the suite . Meals were provided from the canteen and smoking breaks were escorted . The jury room was kept locked . The jury had been asked to hand over all mobile phones , laptops and electronic devices , which were locked in a safe and returned to them at the end of each day . They were not searched . As part of general security measures during the trial , the jury had been picked up and dropped by a coach at a designated meeting point some distance from the court . During the journey to and from court the jurors were accompanied by an usher . The ORG took statements from the court clerk and usher . Both stated that they did not see or hear anything suspicious during the trial . The usher added that the jury had been really professional and a pleasure to look after .

The ORG concluded :

“ It would appear , therefore , that the only opportunity for a member of the jury to have communicated with a third party during their deliberations would have been if they had wilfully retained a mobile phone or communications device , despite having been asked to hand in all such items . Even in those circumstances ... and although access to private toilet facilities was apparently provided from the jury room , it would seem unlikely that a juror could have conducted such a clandestine operation without being noticed by fellow jurors . Nothing has emerged from the enquiries which have been conducted pursuant to the ORG ’s directions which suggest to the ORG that any member of the jury or security staff engaged in any inappropriate activity as regards the disclosure of the jury ’s verdicts or otherwise . ”

At a directions hearing on DATE ORG refused to order any further investigation , for example by interviewing individual jurors .

On DATE a single judge of ORG , Mr Justice PERSON , refused the applicant and his co - defendants leave to appeal . He found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to discharge the jury . As regards the alleged bias on the part of the jury , PERSON found that , as a result of the ORG ’s investigation , no misconduct had been uncovered . There was , for instance , no indication that a “ rogue ” juror had been in communication with a far - right organisation .

Regard had to be given to the manner in which the jury had deliberated , he observed :

“ It is important that although , in the first batch of verdicts on DATE , there were indeed verdicts of guilty against CARDINAL of the CARDINAL defendants , there was a unanimous verdict of not guilty against PERSON ( on count CARDINAL , rape ) . It follows ( on the hypothesis of a juror in communication with a far - right organisation ) that the supposed ‘ rogue’ juror had subscribed to an acquittal . The jury had reached no verdicts on count CARDINAL or count CARDINAL ( the conspiracy counts ) . This suggests that they were following the judge ’s advice to work through the substantive counts before considering the conspiracy counts .

When on DATE May ( a bank holiday intervened ) the next batch of unanimous verdicts where returned , they included a verdict of not guilty against [ GPE ] on count CARDINALB. Again the supposed ‘ rogue’ had subscribed to an acquittal . Following a majority direction , further not guilty verdicts were returned : count CARDINAL ( PERSON , rape ) , count CARDINAL ( PERSON , rape ) , counts CARDINAL and DATE ( GPE , rape ) . These may , of course , have been by a majority . [ ]

Accordingly , it is clear that the jury were considered the case carefully and analytically . ”

Of the defendants , only the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal before the full court . On DATE , following a hearing , ORG refused permission to appeal : [ CARDINAL ] PERSON CARDINAL . It found :

“ CARDINAL . We have carefully considered the material facts and the results of the ORG ’s investigation .

We agree with the conclusions of the ORG . In our judgment , it is not possible to draw the inference from the material before us that a juror deliberately communicated information about the jury ’s deliberations to someone outside the jury whilst at court . The ORG investigation shows that extensive precautions were taken to protect the integrity of the jury in this trial which made it extremely difficult for jurors to communicate in secret with anyone outside the jury room . It is fanciful to imagine that a juror was covertly signalling from the window or that a juror was able to make clandestine telephone calls on a hidden mobile phone , from the toilet or elsewhere , without being overheard or detected by other jurors or court staff . The court clerk and usher , who had worked with the jury for DATE , found no reason to suspect any juror of impropriety or unusual behaviour .

The Judge apparently accepted the ORG ’s submission that the information posted on the internet could have derived from discussions amongst those at court trying to guess the state of the jury ’s deliberations , perhaps from the sequence of jury notes . In our view , it is improbable that guesswork could have resulted in such an accurate prediction of the jury ’s guilty verdicts . We do , however , accept that the information in Mr PERSON ’s final tweet at CARDINAL on CARDINALrd May ( ‘ jury still out on CARDINAL and others will be sentenced next GPE ) , most probably originated from someone connected to the prosecution or defence teams , or the interpreters . The court was sitting in private ; the jury had only just left court after indicating that they had found CARDINAL defendants guilty ; and sentencing dates were not known to the jury and had not been mentioned at any stage in open court .

We accept it is possible that ‘ loose ORG by jurors outside the jury room resulted in information about the jury ’s deliberations being disclosed to outsiders . It is quite possible that the jury had decided upon guilty verdicts in respect of CARDINAL defendants by the time they separated on TIME May. Jury deliberations are , of course , confidential , and jurors are routinely warned not to discuss the case outside the jury room , whether with fellow jurors or anyone else , including members of their family .

Such conduct , even if inadvertent , would amount to a jury irregularity . However , we do not consider that it would be sufficient to render the convictions unsafe . In our view , taken on its own , disclosure of the jury ’s progress on the counts would not have compromised the jury ’s independence or impacted on the jury ’s ability to remain faithful to their oath or affirmation to " faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence " ( see Criminal Practice Direction CARDINALM.CARDINAL ) . The Judge , legal representatives and court staff were unanimous in the view that , throughout the lengthy trial , the jury had participated appropriately in the trial process and appeared to be assessing the evidence conscientiously .

The Applicant alleges apparent bias on the part of the jury , because the information was disseminated by far - right organisations hostile to the defendants . We have applied the test set out in Re Medicaments [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL , as amended in PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC CARDINAL , namely , whether , on an objective appraisal , the material facts give rise to a legitimate fear that the jury might not have been impartial , asking ourselves whether a fair - minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased . A similar test applies under LAW , namely , whether there are sufficient guarantees to exclude any objectively justified or legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the jury : see PERSON v. GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL .

There was ample evidence to support the Judge ’s view that the jury was adopting a ‘ perfectly reasonable , logical and unbiased approach to the evidence’ . Judging from the content of the jury notes and the sequence of the verdicts , they progressed through the counts in the order recommended by the Judge , and carefully considered the evidence in relation to each count . The verdicts , taken as a whole , appeared rational and consistent with the evidence . The Judge observed at the end of the trial that the jury had performed their task with " painstaking care " .

The jurors had all completed questionnaires confirming that they were not associated with the ORG or ORG and there was no evidence to suggest that any juror had withheld information about such an association . The fact that the jury returned unanimous ‘ not guilty’ verdicts on CARDINAL counts on CARDINALrd May was at odds with the allegation that there was one or more racially biased supporter of a farright organisation on the jury , as such a person would presumably not have been party to any ‘ not guilty’ verdict .

Like the Judge , we have concluded that there was simply no evidential link established between the jury and the far - right organisations which posted the information on the internet . Therefore we do not consider that , on the material facts , a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased , nor that there were any objectively justified or legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the jury .

No criticism can be made of the careful and fair manner in which the Judge conducted the necessary enquiries . He was not permitted to ask the jury about the content of its deliberations ; only to investigate any irregularity . We agree with his conclusion that it was not necessary to discharge the jury and we consider that he gave appropriate directions to the jury throughout the trial regarding their conduct .

We do not accept [ Counsel for the applicant ’s ] criticism of the ORG ’s investigations as inadequate . In our view , there was nothing more that the ORG could reasonably have done .

The safety of the convictions is not in doubt and therefore the application for permission to appeal against conviction is refused . ”

The following standard instructions and directions to a jury trying a case in GPE and GPE are taken from the ORG ’s judgment in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

Upon responding to a summons , jury members are sent a leaflet called “ Your Guide to Jury Service ” . The leaflet explains that ORG discussions are private and that jurors should not discuss any aspects of the trial with anyone other than fellow jurors . It sets out that the verdict must be that of the jurors alone and reminds jurors that their role is to reach a verdict on the evidence presented in the court room at trial . The leaflet also notes that it is an offence for anyone outside the jury to try and influence them .

Once selected for jury duty , jurors must swear an oath or make an affirmation that they will :

“ faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence . ”

At the outset of the trial , the jury are conventionally given a direction to the effect that they must try the case on the evidence alone , which is what they hear in court . They are instructed that they must not discuss the case with family , friends or anyone else or conduct their own research into the case .

In Re : B [ DATE ] PERSON , which involved an appeal against an order restricting the reporting of a criminal trial , ORG ) said :

“ There is a feature of our trial system which is sometimes overlooked or taken for granted . The collective experience of this constitution as well as the previous constitution of the court , both when we were in practice at the Bar and judicially , has demonstrated to us time and time again , that juries up and down the country have a passionate and profound belief in , and a commitment to , the right of a defendant to be given a fair trial . They know that it is integral to their responsibility . It is , when all is said and done , their birthright ; it is shared by each CARDINAL of them with the defendant . They guard it faithfully . The integrity of the jury is an essential feature of our trial process . Juries follow the directions which the judge will give them to focus exclusively on the evidence and to ignore anything they may have heard or read out of court . No doubt in this case [ the judge ] will give appropriate directions , tailor - made to the individual facts in the light of any trial post the sentencing hearing , after hearing submissions from counsel for the defendants . We can not too strongly emphasise that the jury will follow them , not only because they will loyally abide by the directions of law which they will be given by the judge , but also because the directions themselves will appeal directly to their own instinctive and fundamental belief in the need for the trial process to be fair . ”

In GPE v. ORG ; PERSON v. ORG Advocate [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC CARDINAL , ORG of ORG considered whether a NORP jury trial taking place after adverse publicity would be compatible with LAW . In finding that it would , Lord Hope ( with whom the members of the ORG agreed ) observed :

“ [ T]he entire system of trial by jury is based upon the assumption that the jury will follow the instructions which they receive from the trial judge and that they will return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence .

The NORP judges are not alone in proceeding upon this assumption . In ORG , in Reg . v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.R. CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON said that jury directions are often long and difficult but that the experience of trial judges is that juries do perform their duty according to law . In NORP v. PERSON DATE ) DATE ) CARDINAL , CARDINAL ORG , under reference to the PERSON case , said that dicta in that case underlined the confidence that may be had in the ability of a jury to disabuse itself of information that it is not entitled to consider . In ORG of Australia , in The Queen v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , CARDINAL PERSON and Toohey J. said that the law proceeds on the footing that the jury , acting in accordance with the instructions given to them by the trial judge , will render a true verdict in accordance with the evidence and that to conclude otherwise would be to underrate the integrity of the system of trial by jury and the effect on the jury of the instructions given by the trial judge . In ORG , in PERSON v. Director of Public Prosecutions [ DATE ] CARDINAL PERSON , CARDINAL PERSON , drawing upon his experience as counsel and as a judge , said that he shared in the confidence that his legal system has in juries to act with responsibility in accordance with the terms of their oath , to follow the directions given by the trial judge and a true verdict give in accordance with the evidence . I consider that the judges in the court below were entitled to draw upon their experience , and I see no reason in the light of my own experience to disagree with their assessment . ”

In ORG in PERSON v. PERSON [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL , Lord Hope of PERSON considered the question of apparent bias and concluded ( at paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ) that :

“ The question is whether the fair - minded and informed observer , having considered the facts , would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased . ”

NORP That test was designed to bring LANGUAGE law into line with the approach taken in GPE and various ORG jurisdictions , and the approach taken by ORG in its LAW ( paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment ) .

Under the law of GPE and GPE , ORG will allow an appeal against conviction if it regards the conviction as unsafe ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ) .

In NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] EWCA Crim CARDINAL – where CARDINAL juror had complained of racial bias on the part of other jurors DATE ORG found that a verdict would be unsafe if the fair minded observer would conclude , on the available evidence , that there was a real possibility of a real danger that the verdict was at least in part the product of bias . Having considered the facts in the case , ORG concluded that it was left with the suspicion that an impartial observer would perceive a real risk of bias . It thus allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction .

In NORP v. JC and Others [ DATE ] EWCA Crim DATE also concerning a complaint of prejudice on the part of fellow jurors DATE ORG stated :

“ The receipt of any communication by a juror or jurors complaining of possible irregularities by or among the other jurors demands rapid and close attention . It behoves the judge to decide whether the integrity of the trial process has been irretrievably damaged or whether the trial can continue notwithstanding the complaints . Depending on the individual facts it may be appropriate for the judge to discharge the jury as a whole , or CARDINAL or more individual members of it , or to continue with the trial , with any necessary direction or warning sufficient to deal with the specific problem . The question for this court is whether the alternative adopted by the judge was correct , which , if the trial has been allowed to continue must be decided at its end , when the warning or directions of the judge , and their impact and any consequences can all be examined . ”

ORG declined to quash the conviction in that case , having regard to the trial ’s judge handling of the complaint ( including the directions he then gave to the jury ) , the conduct of the jury throughout the trial , the length of their deliberations , a question as to the law they had asked of the judge while deliberating , and the different verdicts they had rendered against different defendants on the different counts in the indictment .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) prevents ORG from accepting a majority verdict of guilty unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the verdict . To comply with this provision , and at the same time to prevent it being known whether a not guilty verdict is unanimous or by a majority , ORG set the following procedure for taking a verdict once the jury is permitted to give a majority verdict ( that is , after a “ majority direction ” is given by the trial judge ) . The procedure is now set out in Criminal Practice Direction VI : Trial at paragraph CARDINALQCARDINAL - CARDINAL ( at the time of the applicant ’s trial , paragraph CARDINAL ) . When the jury return with a verdict after a majority direction has been given , they should be asked :

( a ) “ Have CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL as the case may be ) of you agreed on your verdict ? ” ;

( b ) If “ Yes ” , “ What is your verdict ? Please only answer ‘ Guilty’ or ‘ Not Guilty’ . ” ;

( c ) ( i ) If “ Not Guilty ” , accept the verdict without more ado ;

( ii ) If “ Guilty ” , “ Is that the verdict of you all , or by a majority ? ” ;

( d ) If “ Guilty ” by a majority , “ How many of you agreed to the verdict and how many dissented ? ”

Section CARDINALA of LAW DATE gives ORG the power to direct ORG to investigate and report to ORG on any matter necessary for the resolution of an appeal against conviction before it .

Part II of LAW DATE gives the ORG the necessary powers to conduct such an investigation , including the power to require the appointment of police officers to acting as investigating officers .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)

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 excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also complained under LAW based on the same set of facts .


Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and third applicants live in GPE . The second applicant left GPE subsequent to his criminal conviction giving rise to the present application .

On DATE the applicants took part in a religious ceremony ( mevlüt ) on the premises of the NORP district branch of ORG the NORP ” ) in GPE , at which they paid tribute to CARDINAL members of the ORG , an illegal armed organisation , who had been killed by the security forces . CARDINAL of the deceased was the first applicant ’s nephew . The second applicant was the head of the GPE branch of the ORG at the relevant time . The third applicant was a member of the ORG and a friend of the first applicant .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG , charging the applicants and a number of other persons with dissemination of propaganda in favour of the ORG , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , on account of their participation in the ceremony of DATE . According to the indictment , during the ceremony photographs of the deceased and the ORG ’s flag were displayed at the venue and a film about the lives of the deceased was shown . In addition , the second applicant , the head of the GPE branch of the ORG , made the following statement :

“ Our fears and worries continue . People are still being killed . In such a context , we would like this mevlüt to be a moment of peace and fraternity . ”

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG and sentenced them to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment each . In its judgment , ORG observed , firstly , that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation . It also took the view that the choice of venue for DATE the LOC of a political party DATE and the fact that the NORP flag had been spread over the tables and photographs of members of the organisation had been displayed , contributed to raising serious doubts as to the applicants’ submissions that they had taken part in the ceremony in observance of their religious duties . The court considered that the applicants had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda given that they had shared the feelings of mourning and sorrow for the deceased who had been involved in terrorism . It further considered that the venue where the ceremony had been held had turned into a propaganda venue in favour of the ORG .

Following an appeal lodged by the applicants , their conviction was upheld by a final decision of ORG on DATE .

The first and third applicants served their prison sentences .


Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , GPE banka d.d . , PERSON ( hereafter “ the applicant bank ” or “ the ORG ” ) is a joint stock company incorporated under NORP law . Its registered office is in GPE .

NORP Before the economic reforms that were carried out in GPE ( hereafter “ the SFRY ” ) in DATE , its commercial banking system consisted of “ basic ” and “ associated ” banks . Basic banks had separate legal personality , but were integrated into the organisational structure of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL associated banks . As a rule , basic banks were founded and controlled by socially - owned companies based in the same territorial unit ( that is , in CARDINAL of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE or ORG and GPE ) . Socially - owned companies were the flagship of the NORP model of self - management : neither private nor ORG - owned , they were a collective property controlled by their employees , based on a communist vision of industrial relations . CARDINAL basic banks could form an associated bank ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the former GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

ORG ( in NORP and NORP : GPE banka ) was founded in DATE under the laws of the then GPE . In DATE it opened an office in GPE in the then GPE . DATE until DATE ORG ( hereafter “ ORG ” ) operated as an “ associated bank ” ( in NORP : GPE banka – združena banka ) and was composed of ORG , ORG , ORG and a number of other basic banks . In the same period ORG GPE office operated as a “ basic bank ” , that is , as ORG ( in NORP : GPE banka – GPE banka GPE ) and had separate legal personality under the law of the then GPE . It was , however , integrated into the organisational structure of ORG ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and ORG and Others , loc . cit . )

Within the framework of the DATE reforms , the ORG abolished the system of basic and associated banks described above . This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for an independent status , while others became branches ( without legal personality ) of the former associated banks to which they had belonged ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , § DATE ) .

On DATE ORG was re - registered as a joint stock company ( in NORP : delniška družba , “ d.d . ” ) in the then GPE . The change was entered in the register of commercial companies DATE and became effective on DATE ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , § DATE , and NORP and Others , cited above , § § DATE and DATE ) .

On DATE ORG was re - registered with effect from DATE as ORG ( in NORP and NORP : GPE banka d.d . PERSON filijala GPE , hereinafter : “ the ORG ” ) in the registers of commercial companies in both the then GPE and GPE ( see NORP and Others , cited above , § § DATE ) , that is , as a business unit of ORG ( in NORP : del podjetja , in NORP : dio poduzeća ) without legal personality ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Shortly after its declaration of independence on DATE , GPE nationalised ORG . In DATE , it restructured the bank by virtue of the DATE LAW to the DATE LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE . Most of the bank ’s assets and a part of its liabilities were transferred to a new bank – ORG banka , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The old ORG was initially administered by ORG of GPE . It is now controlled by a NORP Government agency DATE ORG ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , § DATE , and NORP and Others , cited above , § § CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .