Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation of tracts of real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the GPE district of GPE , to be taken for ORG needs , with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m.

It appears that the applicant ran a small kiosk on a plot of land situated within the area to be expropriated . It also appears that the authorities demolished this kiosk for the development of that area within the framework of Decree no . CARDINAL

On DATE , as compensation for the applicant ’s kiosk , the Mayor of GPE adopted decision no . PERSON , granting her the right to lease a plot of public land of QUANTITY m. at a specified address in the GPE district of GPE for DATE and to construct and run her kiosk on this land . By the same decision , the Mayor authorised the local authority of GPE district to conclude the lease agreement with the applicant .

On DATE the applicant received planning permission for the plot of land specified in decision no . CARDINAL

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , following the applicant ’s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no . PERSON , the GPE district authorities suggested that the applicant address her enquiries to the Mayor of GPE , while on DATE and DATE the latter suggested that the applicant address her enquiries to the GPE district authorities .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the Mayor and GPE district , seeking to implement decision no . CARDINAL-A.

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim and obliged the Mayor of GPE to conclude the agreement specified in decision no . PERSON with the applicant . No appeals were lodged and this judgment became final on DATE .

NORP On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution for the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the DEJA ” ) instituted enforcement proceedings against the city of GPE , obliging it to conclude the land - lease agreement with the applicant within DATE .

On DATE the Mayor ’s office offered the applicant a possibility to start negotiations . However , by her letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant refused to negotiate with the Mayor ’s office .

On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , upon the applicant ’s enquiries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of DATE , bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was in progress and that she would be informed of the results .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG , requesting that the court oblige it to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s claim inadmissible on the grounds that she lacked standing . ORG reasoned that the applicant had failed to show that her rights had been breached as a result of an administrative action by the ORG . ORG noted that the ORG had taken certain actions in order to enforce the judgment of DATE and that the enforcement procedure was still pending . The decision of ORG of DATE was upheld in the final instance by ORG on DATE .

On DATE and DATE , following an enquiry by the applicant , the bailiff responded that the enforcement was in progress and that the applicant would be informed of the results .

On DATE , pursuant to the applicant ’s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no . PERSON , the Mayor of GPE informed her of the changes in legislation concerning land and reminded the applicant that she had to conclude the land - lease agreement with GPE district .

On DATE the Mayor ’s office offered the applicant CARDINAL different plots of land acceptable in terms of urban planning . However , by a letter sent to the Mayor ’s office , she refused to accept any of the plots .

On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG , the ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings on the grounds that enforcement of the judgment of DATE had become impossible . It reasoned that , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the applicant , the Mayor of GPE had suggested that the applicant approach the department of management of immovable property of the Yerevan Mayor ’s office for the implementation of the judgment of DATE , but the applicant had failed to do so .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking to declare the decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void , as well as to oblige the ORG to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s first claim , reasoning that there were not sufficient grounds for declaring the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void . It refused to examine the applicant ’s second claim .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking to oblige it to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction . This decision was upheld in the final instance by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG seeking , inter alia , that the ORG reopen the proceedings discontinued on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , reasoning that , for the proceedings which had been discontinued on the grounds of impossibility , there were no legal grounds for reopening .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking that the decision of the DEJA of DATE refusing to initiate new proceedings be declared invalid , and that the ORG be obliged to initiate new proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s first claim , declaring the decision of the DEJA of DATE invalid . As to the applicant ’s second claim , ORG terminated the proceedings in that regard on the basis of the lack of jurisdiction .

The proceedings concerning the judgment of CARDINAL DATE are pending before ORG .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention in CARDINAL detention facilities in GPE during CARDINAL separate periods : in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL from DATE to DATE and in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL from DATE to DATE .

The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application . In particular , they acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL in GPE from DATE to DATE violated his right guaranteed by LAW . They offered to pay the applicant MONEY and invited the ORG to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with LAW ( c ) of the LAW . The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent ORG at the rate applicable on the date of payment , and would be payable within DATE from the date of notification of the ORG ’s decision . In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above - mentioned DATE period , the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it , from the expiry of that period until settlement , at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of ORG during the default period plus CARDINAL percentage points . The Government did not comment on the applicant ’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL from DATE to DATE .

The applicant informed the ORG that he agreed to the terms of the declaration .


Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

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

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

The applicant is a former investigator of ORG ( ORG служба по контролю за оборотом наркотиков ) . Under the criminal procedure legislation in force at the material time , a criminal investigation into an investigator ’s action was possible only after a court had issued a decision stating that an investigator ’s actions or inaction contained indication of the constituent elements of a crime .

Following an application lodged with the court by a district prosecutor , on DATE and DATE ORG GPE Центрального ORG г. PERSON ) concluded that there had been indication of the constituent elements of crimes , specifically abuse of power , bribery and forgery of official records in the actions of the applicant .

On DATE the district prosecutor opened CARDINAL criminal investigations against the applicant .

On DATE a supervising prosecutor reversed the decisions to initiate the criminal investigations due to the failure to comply with certain procedural requirements and returned the case file to the district prosecutor for reconsideration .

On DATE a district prosecutor opened CARDINAL criminal investigations against the applicant on the same grounds as previously relying , inter alia , on the evidence gathered after the reversals of DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL criminal investigations were joined .

On DATE during a pre - trial hearing a judge of ORG ( NORP областной суд ) discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant as no new court decision allowing the opening of a criminal investigation had been obtained since the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision on appeal .

Following an application by the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE , on DATE a judge of ORG of GPE initiated a supervisory review of the lower court ’s decision .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE annulled the decisions of DATE and DATE since they had been based on a mistaken interpretation of procedural law stating that no new court decision allowing to open criminal investigations had been required .

On DATE new criminal investigations were opened against the applicant on the same grounds as previously .

The parties did not submit any information on the progress and outcome of these proceedings against the applicant to the ORG .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits

The applicant was born in DATE . At the time of lodging his application , he was detained in FAC . He was released subsequently .

The applicant has been continuously addicted to heroin since DATE , when he was aged DATE . He has also been suffering from hepatitis C since DATE and has been HIV - positive since DATE . He has been considered PERCENT disabled and has been receiving an employment disability pension since DATE . He has tried to overcome his addiction to heroin with various types of treatment ( including CARDINAL courses of in - house drug rehabilitation therapy ) , all of which failed . DATE the applicant ’s heroin addiction was treated with medically prescribed and supervised drug substitution therapy . Since DATE , the applicant had reduced the dosage of his drug substitution medication ( GPE ) and consumed heroin in addition to that medication .

In DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and taken in detention on remand in FAC , where his drug substitution treatment was interrupted against his will . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and , having regard to a previous conviction , to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . It further ordered the applicant ’s placement in a drug detoxification facility , to be executed after a period of CARDINAL months’ detention in prison . The applicant was still not provided with substitution treatment for his heroin addiction . On DATE he was transferred to a drug rehabilitation centre in GPE , GPE , where he underwent abstinencebased treatment for his addiction , without additional substitution treatment .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s detention in the detoxification facility terminated and ordered his retransfer to prison . In a decision dated DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . Having regard , in particular , to the views expressed by the applicant ’s treating doctors , the court considered that it could no longer be expected with sufficient probability that the applicant could be cured from his drug addiction or could be prevented for a considerable time from relapsing into drug abuse . He had secretly consumed methadone at the clinic and lacked motivation to lead a drug - free life .

The applicant was transferred back to PERSON on DATE . The prison doctors gave him various painkillers for chronic pain resulting from his polyneuropathy , on a DATE basis . During his detention , the pain in his feet , neck and spine became such that , at least during certain periods , he spent most of his time in bed .

The applicant was examined by an external doctor for internal medicine , PERSON , on the prison authorities’ request in DATE . H. did not consider any changes in the treatment of the applicant ’s HIV and hepatitis C infections necessary . Having regard to the applicant ’s chronic pain linked to his long - term drug consumption and polyneuropathy , he suggested that the prison medical service reconsider the possibility of drug substitution treatment . He subsequently confirmed that the applicant should be examined by a doctor specialised in drug addiction therapy to that end .

The applicant also obtained , on his request , an opinion drawn up by an external doctor specialised in drug addiction treatment ( B. ) dated DATE , on the basis of the written findings of doctor PERSON and the Kaisheim Prison doctor ’s and authorities’ findings and statements , but without having been able to examine the applicant in person . B. considered that from a medical point of view , drug substitution treatment had to be provided to the applicant . He explained that in accordance with ORG Guidelines for LAW ( GPE Bundesärztekammer zur ORG der substitutionsgestützten PERSON ) of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , drug substitution therapy was internationally recognised as being the best possible therapy for long - standing opioid addicts . Detoxification caused the person concerned serious physical strain and extreme mental stress and should only be attempted in cases of a very short opioid dependence . Drug substitution therapy prevented a deterioration of the patient ’s state of health and a high risk to life , which arose particularly after forced abstinence in detention . It further prevented the spreading of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. It had to be clarified whether , in the applicant ’s case , further treatment for the hepatitis C from which he suffered was necessary .

By submissions dated DATE , which he supplemented subsequently , the applicant made a request to the PERSON prison authorities for treatment with PERSON , PERSON or another heroin substitute for his heroin addiction . Alternatively , he requested that the question of whether such substitution treatment was necessary be examined by a drug addiction specialist .

The applicant claimed that drug substitution treatment was the only adequate treatment for his medical condition . Under the relevant Guidelines of the Federal Medical Association for the Substitution Treatment of Opiate Addicts , drug substitution treatment , which he had received prior to his detention , was the required standard treatment for his condition and had to be continued during his detention .

The applicant claimed that , as confirmed by doctor PERSON , the serious chronic neurological pain from which he was suffering could be considerably alleviated by drug substitution treatment , as had been the case during his previous substitution treatment . Having been addicted to heroin for DATE , he stood hardly any chance of leading a totally drugfree life on release from prison . His rehabilitation could therefore better be furthered by providing him drug substitution treatment . While undergoing such treatment previously , he had been able to lead a relatively normal life and to complete training as a software engineer .

Furthermore , referring to doctor PERSON ’s opinion , the applicant claimed that he was in need of ORG therapy in order to treat his hepatitis C infection . In view of his poor physical and mental health , it was impossible to carry out such treatment without simultaneous drug substitution therapy . Substitution also helped to protect other prisoners from infection when using the same needles as he did for the consumption of drugs and diminished the trafficking and uncontrolled consumption of illegal drugs in prison . He also considered that the prison doctors did not have specialist knowledge in drug addiction treatment and asked to be examined by an external specialist .

After the prison authorities’ first decision dismissing the applicant ’s application was quashed by ORG on DATE for lack of sufficient reasoning , the prison authorities , on DATE , again dismissed the applicant ’s request .

The prison authorities argued that substitution treatment was neither necessary from a medical point of view nor a suitable measure for the applicant ’s rehabilitation . With regard to the medical necessity of drug substitution therapy , the prison authorities , relying on prison doctor PERSON ’s statement , considered that drug substitution therapy was not a necessary treatment for the purposes of section CARDINAL of the Bavarian Execution of Sentences Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They found that the applicant , who was severely addicted to drugs , had not received drug substitution treatment prior to his current detention in FAC . He had been placed in a drug rehabilitation centre for DATE before his transfer to FAC , where he had been treated by medical experts with considerable knowledge of drug addiction treatment . The applicant had neither been given substitution treatment in the clinic , nor had the doctors recommended substitution treatment in prison . After DATE in detention , he no longer suffered from physical withdrawal symptoms . Moreover , his condition with regard to his HIV and hepatitis C infections was stable and did not require any therapy for which substitution treatment was a necessary precondition . As suggested by the prison doctor , the applicant should use the opportunity to wean himself off opioids , such as heroin and its substitutes , while in prison , as it was very difficult to obtain drugs there .

With regard to the applicant ’s social rehabilitation and treatment ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Bavarian Execution of Sentences Act , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the prison authorities added that the main reason for which addicts underwent drug substitution therapy was to prevent them from becoming impoverished and from becoming involved in drug - related criminality . In prison , these risks were not present . Furthermore , the applicant had already shown that substitution therapy while he was at liberty had not prevented him from consuming other drugs or committing crimes , which had been caused by his antisocial nature . Moreover , the applicant had also consumed drugs while in detention . Therefore , providing him substitution treatment could lead to a risk to life and limb .

On DATE the applicant , relying on the reasons he had submitted to the prison authorities , appealed against the decision of the prison authorities to ORG . He further submitted that the authorities of Kaisheim Prison , where no substitution treatment had ever been provided , had omitted to examine the medical necessity of drug substitution therapy under the relevant criteria laid down , in particular , in ORG Guidelines for LAW , which were clearly met in his case . He further argued that under the applicable administrative rules for substitution treatment in prison in GPE , he would be provided with drug substitution therapy , which is carried out in the prisons of the majority of ORG .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given by the prison authorities , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It added that it was not necessary to obtain the opinion of a drug addiction expert . The prison doctors of Kaisheim Prison had sufficient training to decide on the medical necessity of drug substitution therapy , irrespective of the fact that drug substitution therapies might never have been used in that prison . The administrative rules for substitution treatment in prison applicable in LOC were irrelevant , given that FAC was situated in LOC .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . He submitted that ORG failure to investigate sufficiently whether drug substitution treatment was necessary , under the applicable ORG Guidelines and with the help of an independent doctor specialised in drug addiction treatment , had breached section CARDINAL of the Bavarian Execution of Sentences Act and LAW Refusing him the alleviation of his intense neurological pain with an existing and medically necessary treatment constituted inhuman treatment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as illfounded . In the court ’s view , the applicant had failed to show why drug substitution therapy was the CARDINAL specific medical treatment he needed . He had further failed to prove that the prison doctors of FAC were not qualified to decide about the medical necessity of heroin substitution . The applicant ’s objection against ORG decision was rejected .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained that his right to respect for his physical integrity under LAW had been breached because he was denied drug substitution therapy , the only suitable therapy to treat his chronic pain , which would make ORG therapy possible and allow him to reduce his craving for heroin and lead a “ normal ” everyday prison life without isolation . He further complained that his right to be heard under LAW had been violated as the domestic courts had not taken into consideration the medical opinions he had submitted to show that a substitution treatment was necessary and had failed to consult an independent specialised expert .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the Kaisheim prison authorities rejected the applicant ’s fresh request to be provided with substitution treatment in preparation for his release . The applicant ’s counsel was advised to ensure that the applicant was taken to a drug rehabilitation clinic immediately on his release in order to prevent him from taking an overdose of heroine as soon as he was at liberty .

On DATE the applicant was released . When examined by a doctor on DATE he tested positive for methadone and cocaine . The doctor confirmed that the applicant would receive drug substitution treatment from DATE .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent

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

The applicants are CARDINAL NORP Cypriots relatives of QUANTITY men who were killed during the conflict in GPE in DATE .

The applicants and their relatives were living in or about the area of ORG ( Taşkent ) village . On DATE armed NORP Cypriots who were mostly from the locality arrived at the village and collected the male NORP - NORP population of the village and marched them to a NORP elementary school in the NORP sector . Among the abductors were named villagers under the command of a named NORP man , GPE , from the village , along with CARDINAL NORP soldiers in uniform with a mainland NORP accent .

Some CARDINAL NORP - NORP men , including children as young DATE , were kept TIME at the school . CARDINAL NORP - NORP men from CARDINAL other villages were also brought to the school . CARDINAL NORP officers from the mainland told them they were prisoners of war and led them to believe that they would be taken to a prison camp at GPE . TIME , the NORP - Cypriot men and boys were loaded on QUANTITY buses under armed guard . They were taken away to an unknown destination .

A statement by PERSON , reported in newspapers shortly afterwards and later included in a book on the conflict , gave the following account of the fate of the men . PERSON , his father and brother were amongst the men loaded on the buses . Their bus drove past GPE and stopped at a junction . The armed men ordered the prisoners to march into the countryside . They were ordered to stop at a hollow and allowed to smoke . Almost immediately , shooting began . PERSON was hit in the stomach and legs and fell down pretending to be dead . He heard the CARDINAL armed guards speaking in a mainland NORP accent , saying “ That is the end of them , let ’s go now and bring a bulldozer and bury them . ” PERSON cousin was also still alive but badly wounded but PERSON was unable to help him due to his own injuries . He fled the scene , hiding out in the hills for DATE . He was eventually picked up by a ORG ambulance and taken to a NORP base . He later went to the north in a helicopter .

NORP In DATE , the stories of various villagers , naming NORP Cypriots involved in the incident , were published in a booklet “ The Tragedy of Turkish Cypriot missing persons in GPE – Third decade ”

The applicants provided information that on DATE , the alleged perpetrator , DATE , made a statement to the newspaper “ Alithia ” , stating inter alia that he and others had acted together with the government forces and had done what the government forces ordered them to do . He confirmed the gathering of the NORP men and that they had been loaded onto buses by soldiers from ORG .

No information about the applicants’ missing relatives was given nor any investigative measure taken until , on DATE , ORG made a statement in newspapers published in northern GPE inviting the families of missing persons to give blood samples to ORG to aid in the identification of remains . The applicants came south and gave blood samples DATE .

No news was forthcoming for some time so in DATE the applicants contacted both ORG and the Attorney- General of GPE asking for information . On receiving no reply within DATE , some of the applicants filed CARDINAL cases in ORG on DATE and DATE against the Attorney ORG , ORG and ORG claiming that the authorities had failed to initiate all relevant procedures to ascertain the fate of the disappeared men during DATE and that the authorities should be ordered to conduct an effective investigation to locate and identify the remains and to identify and prosecute the perpetrators .

ORG on Missing Persons ( “ the UNCMP ” ) had meanwhile commenced exhumations . On DATE , excavation began in a mountain region in GPE village and soon after remains of CARDINAL missing men from the CARDINAL villages were found . The remains of CARDINAL of the remaining CARDINAL missing men were later found at another location . A newspaper account dated DATE explained that the remains of this group of victims had been transferred by NORP Cypriots from CARDINAL burial spot to another unknown location due to a minefield – the remains of CARDINAL men had been left behind . The DNA analysis of the remains has not yet been issued by the ORG .

On DATE , ORG rejected the claims finding that the subject - matter constituted an “ act of ORG ” , with which the courts could not interfere . The plaintiffs appealed . The decision was upheld on DATE ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) .

According to information submitted by the ORG , the Attorney General ordered an investigation into the death of CARDINAL missing persons from Tochni on DATE . Steps taken included as follows .

The police took statements from CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL relatives of missing persons who had written to the Attorney General naming QUANTITY persons as implicated in the events leading to their relatives’ deaths and requesting an investigation . These CARDINAL witnesses named QUANTITY persons , including QUANTITY brothers , as arresting the missing men and confining them at the elementary school . The men had been boarded on a bus DATE . CARDINAL witness stated that it was CARDINAL NORP Cypriots in uniform whom he did not know who put the men on the bus . The witness who had survived the incident stated that it was the NORP Cypriots who put the men on the bus who later killed them but he did not know their identities .

Of the QUANTITY persons named as arresting the missing men ( including the individuals referred to in paragraph QUANTITY above ) , the police found that CARDINAL had died . Statements were taken from the remaining CARDINAL . CARDINAL denied any involvement ; the fourth admitted taking NORP to be confined at the school . He had left at that stage but named CARDINAL men who remained to guard the prisoners . On investigation the police found these QUANTITY men had since died . A statement was also taken from a former policeman who had visited the elementary school at the time ; while he named a man guarding the prisoners , it transpired that this man had died . The police officer also confirmed that orders had been given to confine ORG but did not remember the source of the orders – with some doubt , he thought they might have come from the national guard general staff . A former PERSON army officer named by a witness as passing on orders to confine NORP was located ; he claimed not to remember whether the orders came from or whether it was his own initiative ; he only recalled confining NORP males from PERSON in the village coffee shop .

Police made efforts to track the source of the orders . A search of the national guard records yielded no results .

On DATE , the Attorney - General gave instructions to the police for further investigative steps . Following the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON and Others v Cyprus , he took further steps to ensure the transmission of information about the finding of bodies of missing persons . On DATE , he was then informed by the CMP of the discovery of the remains of CARDINAL unidentified remains from Tochni village . He in turn informed the chief of police , noting that an investigation was already pending .

On DATE , the Attorney General was informed of the identification of the bodies of CARDINAL of the missing men from Tochni . On DATE he ordered a specific investigation into their deaths .

In DATE , the police submitted the ORG investigation file to the Attorney General . He gave instructions on DATE for further investigation , inter alia to investigate the historical background of the DATE events , to explore the possibility that some of those known to be implicated in the DATE events might have been involved in ORG killings , to broaden the temporal scope of the investigation so as not to be restricted to orders given on DATE of the second invasion ( DATE ) and to investigate further the allegation of the witness survivor that the bus had been stopped at a police checkpoint on the route to GPE . He ordered that the investigation should not be closed without the discovery and identification of all the missing men and joined all relevant investigations .

According to the Government , which found difficulty in reconciling names of applicants with those included in official records , DNA samples were taken from CARDINAL villagers in order to assist in the identification of remains . CARDINAL of these were applicants in this case . These samples were taken in DATE from the villagers who gave them voluntarily after signing a consent form in the NORP language . The consent form stated that the DNA would be isolated from the sample and stored and registered at CING ( the DNA Identification Laboratory ) and that the DNA would be used in tests and identification studies for the identification of the remains of their missing relatives . The results would be communicated to any NORP person or institution as authorised by the President of the Republic and to the donor after approval by the Government .

CING processed the samples , isolating the DNA which was stored . In DATE - CARDINAL , during negotiations with the ORG , it was clear that the NORP member wanted fresh samples to be taken . This was reflected in the ORG agreement with CING for provision of funds . Fresh samples of blood were accordingly obtained from NORP - Cypriot relatives under the auspices of the NORP - Cypriot member who verified that all had signed , and understood , a fresh consent form indicating that the DNA isolated from the sample would be transmitted by the NORP - Cypriot member of the UNCMP to CING to be genotyped and only to be used in the framework of the ORG programme of identifying remains . The form stated that previous consent forms were revoked . It was stated that at DATE ORG project copies of all available data would be transferred to the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG .

It appears that CING holds DNA samples from CARDINAL applicants , transferred to them in DATE by the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG . At this stage , the previous samples from DATE were destroyed for CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL villagers . This was in accordance with the revocation of the former forms of consent and new arrangements . Copies of official records of destruction of the material have been provided .

The DNA samples of those individuals who only donated blood in DATE are still stored and no analysis has yet been made . No NORP who gave a sample in DATE has approached CING requesting any information about the fate of their sample .

On DATE , the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG requested a digital copy of all the data related to the NORP - Cypriot relatives of missing persons . CING transmitted the data on DATE .

According to the Government , the destruction of samples given by any of the CARDINAL remaining villagers or applicants who only gave samples in DATE is subject to the procedure set out in ORG of the CING laboratory – a form existed whereby requests for destruction could be lodged .

According to the applicants , CING was no longer involved in identification of remains . Their role has been superceded by an agreement in DATE between the ORG and ORG on Missing Persons in GPE to which organisation all blood samples are now sent for testing . The applicants pointed out that they were not sent copies of the destruction records and had not been informed that their samples had been destroyed at the time . For those who had given samples not yet destroyed , they had not been given any information about their use or fate .

In these cases lodged in DATE , the relatives of CARDINAL NORP - NORP men who went missing on DATE after they had been taken from their homes by armed NORP Cypriots , lodged applications under LAW , claiming that GPE had known of the deaths of the missing persons but had not searched for the corpses or brought the guilty persons to justice and that the Republic had not taken the necessary actions to pursue an effective investigation to determine the whereabouts and fate of the missing persons . In their response , GPE stated that they had not been passive but had been unable to pursue their intentions to exhume and identify corpses due to the agreement between ORG , the NORP - NORP side and themselves that exhumations would be conducted by a common programme of ORG . They also pointed out that exhumations had begun in DATE and the programme indicated the likelihood of the exhumation of the graves in the relevant area would commence in DATE . They disputed that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the courts but fell rather under the supervision of ORG and the authority and initiative of the President of the Republic .

In its decision dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG in its appellate capacity held that the fate of missing persons fell under the authority of the President of the Republic as it had an international aspect ; the cases therefore concerned an act of government which did not fall within the jurisdiction to annul of ORG .


Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and was detained in LOC at the time of lodging the application . He was represented before the ORG by Mr İ. Akmeşe , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and for illegal possession of explosives .

On DATE the applicant was placed in detention on remand on the order of the investigating judge .

On DATE ORG filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation and illegal possession of explosives , under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . At the end of each hearing the court reviewed the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . Taking into account the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant had been charged and the state of the evidence , it decided to keep him in detention . The applicant and his lawyer were present at each hearing .

After the third hearing , held on DATE , the applicant filed an objection against the detention order and asked to be released . On DATE the Istanbul CARDINALth ORG rejected the applicant ’s request after examining it on the basis of the case file , without holding a hearing . When delivering its decision the Assize court took into account a written opinion filed by the public prosecutor , which was not communicated to the applicant or his lawyer .

A sixth hearing was held on DATE , after which , on DATE , the ORG court held a hearing to review the applicant ’s detention . The hearing was held ex proprio motu , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL , and the decision was delivered on the basis of the case file .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment without holding a hearing .


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

Erik Møse;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a former prosecutor . For DATE , until DATE or DATE , he served as district prosecutor for GPE , heading what has been described as the largest prosecution office in GPE . While in that post , he got into a conflict with several of his subordinates , including GPE and PERSON

After the applicant left his post , a commission was appointed with the task of looking into the prosecution office ’s work under his management . GPE and PERSON were among the commission ’s members . The revision carried out by the commission led subsequently to the opening of criminal proceedings against the applicant , as it was alleged that he had exerted pressure on CARDINAL of his subordinates in relation to the outcome of a case .

On DATE the national daily ORG published an interview with the applicant , where he stated :

“ All my life I have fought against crime . What is more , I have tried to defeat the mafia present in the prosecution services . I admit that I have failed . And now I am bearing the consequences of that . The commission which carried out the inquiry [ at the district prosecutor ’s office ] includes exactly those prosecutors , [ GPE , PERSON and a third person ] , who staged a revolt at the time against the working methods I introduced . The aim of those methods was to eliminate any grounds for corrupt arrangements related to the cases . That did not suit those CARDINAL prosecutors and the notorious [ prosecutor PERSON ] . ”

Warned by the journalist interviewing him that his words were strong , the applicant nevertheless continued :

“ I am saying things which will not surprise my colleagues . It is a public secret that CARDINAL of the prosecutors I mentioned is known among barristers and “ clients ” of the prosecution not so much with his own name , but with another one . ”

The applicant then explained that the prosecutor at issue was known as “ Prosecutor PERSON ( прокурора PERSON ) , meaning someone who takes bribes , derived from the colloquial word for bribe , rushvet ( рушвет ) .

Asked by the journalist whether ORG knew that , the applicant continued :

“ If he does not know , he may ask me . I am knowledgeable about corruption patterns . And because I respect his efforts to defeat these patterns , I will give him a well - meant advice : he should check the properties owned by the people accusing me of having committed an offence while doing my work . ”

Questioned about a finding by the commission that a “ bad psychological atmosphere ” existed at the GPE district public prosecutor ’s office while it was headed by him , the applicant stated further :

“ The inspection might be right , if by ‘ bad psychological atmosphere’ they mean my intolerance towards those prosecutors ... , who performed their duties in a sloppy manner , or attended meetings with the lawyers of criminals to decide on the outcome of cases . There were such prosecutors at the [ GPE district prosecutor ’s office ] . They became an organised group when the prosecutor [ ORG ] came to work with us . ... The animosity between me and [ ORG ’s ] circle , comprising the unhealthiest elements in the prosecution service , is well known . As are known from media publications [ ORG ’s ] palaces , the companies owned by his wife in association with criminals . ... It is ironic that exactly those prosecutors which we at the [ district prosecutor ’s office ] called “ [ ORG ’s ] guardsmen ” are in the group which is to check my work . Me being checked by Prosecutor PERSON ! Shame ! And have the case files of the checkers also been checked ? ”

Asked then about the working methods he had introduced , the applicant stated :

“ Instead of commenting on whether the working methods introduced by me have been effective , I will give you simple statistics . I took over [ the district prosecutor ’s office ] in DATE . During DATE the prosecutors in it had drawn up CARDINAL acts of indictment . PERCENT of those were remitted by the courts , and the acquittals were PERCENT . This means that the failures were PERCENT . The persons convicted were CARDINAL .

Now pay attention to the statistics for DATE , after I introduced my working methods . Acts of indictment drawn up : CARDINAL . PERCENT of the cases remitted by the courts . Acquittals : PERCENT . Persons convicted : CARDINAL . I am not being smug about the obvious progress of the prosecution . On the contrary , I thought we could have improved even further . ... ”

Concerning the working methods at issue , the applicants said further :

“ The aim was to make the police officer and the prosecutor work side by side , exactly as NORP experts are recommending . And to reduce the possibilities for corruption deals made in private ... But I do not want to talk any further . My frustration is enormous . You understand why . ”

NORP In response to a question by the journalist as to why he had not discussed the matter with ORG , the applicant said :

“ I do n’t know if there is any point . In fact , what [ he ] is doing now in [ his office ] is what I tried to do at the time at the [ GPE district prosecutor ’s office ] – to sweep all the trash out of the house . I managed , to a certain extent , but at DATE many pieces of trash came to the surface . They are crushing me now . I hope sincerely that the same fate will not befall [ the Chief Prosecutor ] . ”

On DATE published GPE and PERSON ’s response to the applicant ’s allegations . That article has not been submitted by the parties .

On an unspecified date in DATE , GPE and PERSON initiated a private prosecution of the applicant , alleging that he had insulted them and had committed the offence under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They found the following statements particularly offensive : “ I have tried to defeat the mafia present in the prosecution services ” ; “ the unhealthiest elements in the prosecution service ” ; “ many pieces of trash came to the surface ... crushing me now ” ; as well as his allegedly calling CARDINAL of them “ Prosecutor PERSON . They claimed that the offence was aggravated because the insult had been made through the media and concerned them in their capacity as “ public officials ” .

In the context of the criminal proceedings , GPE and PERSON also brought civil claims for damages against the applicant , each of them seeking MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .

The first - instance court , ORG , heard a number of witnesses , who described the conflict between the applicant and GPE and PERSON It also heard the applicant , who stated that when making the above statements he had not referred to either of the CARDINAL complainants and pointed out that in the interview he had mentioned the names of CARDINAL other prosecutors , in particular ORG

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG acquitted the applicant and dismissed the civil claims against him . It considered that it had not been established that the expressions complained of had indeed referred to GPE and PERSON It found further that the complainants had seen the statements as being aimed at them , and had felt their reputation and dignity as being harmed , “ owing to their strained relations ” with the applicant .

GPE and PERSON lodged an appeal . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the lower court ’s ruling and convicted the applicant , finding that he was guilty of insult in an aggravated form . It set aside his criminal liability but imposed an administrative penalty on him – a fine of BGN MONEY ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) . Furthermore , it ordered him to pay each of the complainants ORG MONEY ( the equivalent of LAW ) in damages , plus interest , and ORG ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL ) for the costs and expenses incurred by the complainants .

ORG reasoned as follows :

“ It is a fact that the accused uttered the expressions indicated in the private criminal prosecution – “ mafia in the prosecution services ” , “ PERSON , “ the unhealthiest elements in the prosecution service ” and “ many pieces of trash came to the surface ... crushing me now ” . It is also a fact that the expressions were uttered in an interview , which was published and disseminated through the mass media – the PERSON newspaper ... , in its issue of CARDINAL DATE . It is a fact that the complainants ... were named in their capacity as public officials DATE being prosecutors at the GPE district public prosecutor ’s office – and in relation to their official duties . ” ...

“ It has been established that the complainants were aware of those statements , on the basis of the testimony [ of the witnesses ] , as well as on the basis of the article in ORG published on DATE , and presented in the case , which contained ... their response to the interview of CARDINAL DATE .... ”

“ It can be seen from the testimony [ of the witnesses ] that after reading the interview given by the accused ... the complainants felt that their honour and dignity had been harmed , which caused a feeling of humiliation ... ”

“ The accused ’s explanations show that he was aware that the incriminatory expressions were offensive and humiliating to those to whom they were addressed [ and ] the manner in which he disseminated them [ shows ] that he aimed to make them public and that they reach the complainants ... ”

“ The accused ’s claim in his defence , endorsed by the district court , that the incriminatory expressions were not directed specifically at the complainants ... , can not be accepted by the appeal court .

The fact that [ the statements ] may have been directed against CARDINAL other [ prosecutors whose names were mentioned in the interview ] , and that those people may have decided not to prosecute the accused for harming their honour and dignity , does not alter the fact that the accused ’s criminal liability in respect of the CARDINAL complainants must be engaged . ”

NORP The applicant paid in the amounts indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above on DATE . The total amount paid , including interest and the fees charged by the enforcement official , was BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG published an interview with GPE and PERSON , where they discussed the applicant ’s conviction .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and who is currently serving a prison sentence at FAC . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent .

NORP The events that gave rise to the present application are disputed between the parties . They will therefore be presented separately .

NORP On DATE the applicant received a parcel at FAC ( “ the LOC ” ) , where he was serving his sentence at the material time . As he was being taken to the parcel room by a prison guard , he greeted a fellow inmate in the corridor , without making any physical contact . The guard reacted to their brief interaction by mocking and insulting the applicant . The applicant did not respond to the guard .

Once they reached the parcel room , the guard ordered the applicant to wait outside and the applicant complied . The guard then shouted at him to move further away from the door and to stand against the wall , following which he pushed the applicant forcefully against the wall . In response , the applicant told the guard that he had no right to touch him , at which point the guard allegedly started punching the applicant in the face and kicking his feet while shouting insults at him . Although the applicant restrained himself from hitting back and sought only to protect his face with his hands , the guard called on his colleagues to intervene , claiming that the applicant was attacking him . A number of other guards in the vicinity ran towards them and started hitting the applicant as well . The applicant stated that his inmate friend , PERSON , and the prison governor , who were in the parcel room at the relevant time , had witnessed the events .

After the applicant had collected his parcel , he was taken to single occupancy cell A - T-CARDINAL , where he was “ lynched ” by a group of guards , who also insulted and threatened him . The blows he received at that time left him with a broken nose , cuts to his lips , serious wounds on his knee , swellings of various sizes on different parts of his head and visible bruises on his eyes .

The following day the applicant asked to be taken to the prison infirmary . The prison doctor examined him and made detailed notes . The applicant did not , however , see what the doctor ’s notes contained as he was not allowed to see the medical report .

The Government ’s version of the events is based on the report prepared by CARDINAL prison guards after the incident in question . The relevant parts of the report read as follows :

“ ... on DATE , while collecting his parcel , the detainee PERSON attempted to shake hands with and speak to another detainee who had received a parcel . This interaction was stopped by the officers and [ the applicant ] was told that such interaction and contact was not lawful . Nevertheless , the detainee did not change his attitude and [ shouted ] : ‘ ... Who are you to interfere in my business ? I will start proceedings against you , I will see you!’ He was placed in cell no . A - T-CARDINAL for security reasons because he [ had ] continued his [ insults ] , while also trying to kick and punch the officers ... ”

On DATE , the applicant was taken to the prison infirmary for a medical examination in connection with the disciplinary proceedings that were to be instituted in respect of the incident . According to the medical report , dated DATE , the prison doctor had noted no signs of illtreatment on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for his misbehaviour on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted his defence statement – containing the allegations subsequently submitted to ORG to ORG .

On DATE the applicant was punished with DATE of solitary confinement by ORG as a disciplinary sanction for having insulted and threatened prison officers . It was noted in the disciplinary decision that , contrary to the applicant ’s allegations of illtreatment by prison guards , the medical report issued shortly after the incident had not noted any injuries on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE ORG decision was served on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant objected to that decision .

The applicant ’s objections were dismissed as groundless by the NORP Enforcement Judge and subsequently by ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicant lodged the following criminal complaint with the NORP public prosecutor , via the prison administration , against the prison guards who had allegedly ill - treated him :

“ DATE TIME ( on DATE ) at TIME I was taken out of my cell ... to collect a parcel . The officer who accompanied me insulted me for having said “ hello ” to a friend passing by in the corridor ... I did not see the need to respond to him .

Once we reached the parcel room , [ the officer ] told me to wait outside as there was someone else in the room [ collecting a ] parcel . I complied . He told me to move [ and stand ] by the door . I moved . He insisted that I stand near the wall ... and then pushed me against the wall .

[ In response ] I said to him : ‘ Do not touch me ; talk to me like a human being.’ Upon my response , he ... started attacking me physically ; he punched me in the face , and started kicking my foot . I then told him that he did not have the right to [ use ] physical force and that he could institute proceedings against me if I had done something wrong . I also told him that I would institute proceedings against him .

Thereupon he said : ‘ Who are you to talk , to say that you will report ORG , and started attacking me again . My only response was to protect my face ...

But the ‘ officer’ ( I do not know his name but I can identify him ) did not stop there ; he distorted the situation by telling the other officers in the corridor [ that I was ] threatening and attacking him . Upon [ hearing him ] another officer also attacked me ( he punched and kicked me ) . The other officers tried to stop the attackers .

I was then taken to the parcel room , and after I had collected my parcel CARDINAL officers took me not to my own cell but to a small room . They insulted me ... and tried to provoke me ... They then put me in an individual cell ( TEK CARDINAL ) .

... After they had brought my belongings to me in the [ individual ] cell , CARDINAL officers attacked me physically in the cell . For TIME these CARDINAL officers punched and kicked me .

They also threatened me and said : ‘ we ’ll show DATE , ‘ you are done’ , and ‘ we will destroy DATE . They also said : ‘ this is how we start GPE , and left .

I have thus been subjected to torture , physical attacks and insults .

In short , I am not safe here ... A new round of torture may be imminent if no precautions are taken .

[ I therefore request ] :

- The identification of the relevant individuals , the institution of legal proceedings against them , and their punishment , as necessary ... ”

On DATE the governor of ORG forwarded the applicant ’s criminal complaint to the NORP public prosecutor , along with his medical report ( dated DATE ) , statements taken from CARDINAL prison guards after the incident , and CARDINAL incident reports . The governor also informed the public prosecutor that administrative proceedings in respect of the incident had been instituted .

On DATE the NORP public prosecutor requested information from the ORG administration regarding the outcome of the administrative proceedings instituted in respect of the incident of DATE . On DATE the ORG administration furnished the public prosecutor with the information requested .

On DATE the applicant made the following statement to the NORP public prosecutor :

“ As I have already explained in my criminal complaint , on DATE I was taken to the parcel room to collect my parcel ... As I was waiting outside the parcel room , the ... officer standing next to me told me to lean against the wall ... I told him : ‘ do not touch me ! I will do what is necessary if you tell me like a human being.’ He then attacked me and called on the other officers [ to help ] as he was being attacked [ by me ] . They arrived and CARDINAL of them [ joined ] the officer who had attacked me while the others separated us . After I had collected my parcel , they took me to room no . Atek-CARDINAL , where they beat me ... I saw the doctor on DATE in relation to this incident . The doctor examined me and saw my injuries . I do not understand why [ he then ] reported no signs of blows . I have lodged a separate complaint ; I would also like to complain about the doctor . The prison governor was also there at the time of the event but he did not intervene ... therefore , I am also making a complaint against him . ”

On DATE and DATE the public prosecutor took statements from the prison governor and the CARDINAL prison guards who had allegedly been involved in the incident . They all stated that the applicant had not been beaten up as alleged but had only been warned orally not to interact with another detainee and had then been restrained when he had started attacking CARDINAL of them . They stated that had the applicant been ill - treated in any way , this would have been determined by the medical examination to which he had been subjected shortly after the alleged incident .

On DATE the public prosecutor took a statement from the doctor who had examined the applicant on DATE . The doctor , who worked at ORG but who had been on temporary duty at the Tekirdağ F - Type Prison at the relevant time , made the following statement :

“ ... [ He ] was brought to the prison infirmary by the prison officers . He said that he had been beaten up and requested a report . I examined the individual but there were no signs of beating or the use of force on his body . I prepared my report accordingly . He showed me where he had allegedly been hit but I did not see any [ injuries ] . I [ do ] not understand why he lodged a complaint against me . I carried out my duty in accordance with the law . I do not accept the accusations against me . ”

On DATE , the NORP public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the prison officers and the doctor . The public prosecutor found that , contrary to his allegations , the applicant had not been assaulted by the prison guards on DATE in question but had only been warned a number of times to stop interacting with other inmates while waiting outside the parcel room . Instead of complying with these orders , the applicant had threatened and attempted to attack the guards . On account of his rowdy behaviour he had been placed in a single - person cell for security reasons . The doctor who had examined him DATE had moreover noted no signs of physical violence on the applicant ’s body . The public prosecutor highlighted in this connection that he had questioned the prison doctor in relation to the applicant ’s allegations and that the doctor had testified to the accuracy of his medical findings and had denied the applicant ’s accusations . Lastly , the public prosecutor referred to the outcome of the disciplinary investigation instituted against the prison guards involved in the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for details ) , which had found that the guards had acted lawfully . In the light of the evidence before him , the public prosecutor concluded that the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment were unfounded .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with ORG against the decision of the NORP public prosecutor . He argued that the public prosecutor had failed to establish the facts accurately and had , in particular , not examined with sufficient care his allegations of ill - treatment in cell no . A - T-CARDINAL . A review of the footage from the surveillance cameras in the corridors would have verified the accuracy of his allegations . He further maintained that the prison doctor had initially noted the injuries on his body , lips and eyes , but that he might have subsequently changed his medical report under duress from the prison authorities .

On DATE ORG requested the relevant investigation file from the NORP public prosecutor in order to be able proceed with the examination of the applicant ’s objection . On DATE ORG repeated its request .

On DATE , following the receipt of the investigation file , ORG upheld the NORP public prosecutor ’s decision not to prosecute on the basis of the contents of the investigation file and the reasoning in that decision , and dismissed the applicant ’s objection .

In the meantime , disciplinary proceedings were also instituted against the prison guards . However , on the basis of the statements given by the relevant guards and the applicant ’s medical report dated DATE , ORG decided on DATE that the officers had acted in accordance with the law and that they had not committed any wrongdoings .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with acute sinusitis by the Tekirdağ Prison doctor and was prescribed medication to ease his breathing difficulties .

On DATE , prior to the execution of his disciplinary sanction , the applicant was subjected to a general medical check . The prison doctor who examined the applicant noted that his breathing and heartbeat were normal , that his blood pressure was DATE , and that he was medically fit to serve his sanction .

On DATE the applicant was once again examined by the prison doctor and given different medicine to provide relief for nasal congestion .

On DATE the applicant was prescribed new medication for acute sinusitis . The prison doctor also asked for him to be referred for further examination to the ear , nose and throat clinic at ORG .

On DATE the applicant was examined at the ear , nose and throat clinic at ORG , where he was prescribed a different nasal spray .

Apart from the examinations noted below , the applicant was admitted to the Tekirdağ Prison infirmary on CARDINAL other occasions DATE and DATE , all at his request , with complaints such as vitamin deficiency , constipation , nausea , fatigue , gastritis and nail fungus .

It appears that on DATE the applicant was transferred from the Tekirdağ F - Type Prison to the Bolu F - Type Prison . On DATE , the applicant was subjected to a medical examination , during which no injuries were noted on his body . The medical report , which bore the applicant ’s signature , did not refer to any health complaints made by the applicant , and only mentioned that he suffered from sinusitis .

Documents submitted by the ORG reveal that DATE and DATE the applicant underwent some sixtyfive medical examinations , all at his request , at FAC infirmary in relation to various health complaints , mostly concerning his dermatological and eye problems . Between the same dates , he was referred to ORG on CARDINAL occasions in relation to the same problems .


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

The applicants are NORP nationals , whose dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the appendix . They all own plots of land located in different cities of GPE .

Following local land development plans , the applicants’ plots of land were designated for public use . Subsequently , complaining about the decrease in the market value of the land and the long - term uncertainty about the fate of their plots of land , the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the civil courts .

During the proceedings relating to their land , the applicants submitted the decision given by ORG of ORG ( civil divisions , numbered ORG ) to the domestic courts and asserted that according to this decision their compensation claims had to be accepted .

On various dates DATE , the applicants’ respective claims for compensation were dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that their plots of land were not actually seized by the authorities . In their decisions , neither the courts of first instance nor ORG of ORG , which examined the ORG claims on cassation , expressed any reason as to why they had reached a different conclusion from ORG Court of Cassation .

The details of the proceedings may be found in the appended table .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE and DATE the DATE newspaper PERSON published several articles about a human trafficking case in GPE , in which the applicant ’s name was mentioned in various contexts .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the publisher of the said newspaper , seeking compensation for nonpecuniary damage due to violation of his honour and reputation caused by the publishing of untrue information about him .

On DATE , following a remittal , ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant , ordering the publisher to pay the applicant DATE ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damages and to publish the judgment in PERSON , the DATE newspaper in question .

On DATE ORG amended this judgment by awarding the applicant LAW as compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered , which judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with double murder and attempted murder .

During the trial the applicant was represented by ORG - appointed counsel , PERSON

On DATE ORG , in a trial by jury , convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed , unassisted by counsel . He submitted , in particular , that he had acted in self - defence and asked for reduction of the sentence from murder to manslaughter .

On DATE the applicant was notified that the appeal hearing would be held on DATE . According to the Government , his counsel , PERSON , was also informed by telegram of the date of the appeal hearing .

On DATE ORG of GPE held an appeal hearing . The applicant and the prosecutor were present . Counsel PERSON did not attend . According to the applicant , he had asked for replacement counsel to be appointed for him . According to the Government , no such request had been made . On DATE the court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . PERSON in GPE , where he remained until DATE .

On DATE the ORG sent the applicant at his request the text of the ORG , an application form together with the explanatory note , an authority form , and the notice to applicants . On DATE the letter was received by the GPE remand centre where the applicant had been previously held . It was opened , stamped , and then transferred to colony no . PERSON in GPE .

According to the applicant , on DATE a deputy head of ORG had summoned him and strongly advised him not to submit an application to the ORG . Immediately after this conversation he had been put in a disciplinary cell for DATE . According to the ORG ’s account , it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the official . At the applicant ’s request , the official had explained to him the procedure for applying to the ORG . He had not made any threats . The applicant had then been put into a disciplinary cell for having sent a letter through informal channels instead of sending it via the detention facility ’s administration .

On DATE the ORG ’s letter of DATE was received by the staff of colony no . FAC and was opened and stamped . According to the applicant , he had received the covering letter of DATE and the text of the Convention on DATE . The other enclosures and the envelope had not been given to him . According to the Government , all the enclosures had been handed over to the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sent an improvised application form to the ORG .

The applicant stated that on DATE he had been summoned by the head of correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE , who had issued the threat that if he did not stop complaining , he would regret it . According to the Government , it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the head of the correctional colony . No threats had been made to the applicant during the meeting .

On DATE the applicant was temporarily transferred to medical correctional facility no . CARDINAL in GPE for anti - tuberculosis treatment .

The applicant stated that on DATE he had handed a sealed envelope containing a letter to the ORG to the medical correctional facility ’s administration . The letter had been opened , stamped and dispatched to the addressee . The ORG stated that the applicant had handed the letter to the detention facility staff unsealed .

According to the applicant , the detention facility ’s administration had refused to dispatch many of his letters to the ORG , and he had therefore had to send them through informal channels . The ORG stated that all his letters had been dispatched .

NORP The applicant complained to various ORG authorities about the opening of and the failure to dispatch his letters to the ORG . In a letter dated DATE , the prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant that there had been no evidence of any failure to dispatch his letters .

On DATE the medical correctional facility ’s administration received another letter from the ORG addressed to the applicant acknowledging receipt of his correspondence . That letter was opened , stamped and then given to the applicant . The employee who had opened the letter was subsequently disciplined .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was , at the time of the events , a lecturer at ORG .

On DATE the local newspaper Republica Oltenia published an article entitled “ Feature story on sex - blackmail professor ” ( “ PERSON metraj cu un professor de sex - şantaj ” ) . The article , written by PERSON , was illustrated by CARDINAL photographs showing a man and a woman naked and having sex . The man ’s face was not visible . On the photographs were the handwritten words “ the man in the photos is PERSON , university as.[sistant ] at the electrotechnical faculty ” . CARDINAL of the photographs also appeared at the top of the front page of the newspaper .

The article started by mentioning that the man in the photographs was a university professor , an important person in society , who was involved in bribery , blackmail , child sex abuse and sexual deviance , the details of which would be given in the article .

The article continued by stating that in DATE the applicant ’s students had complained to the university dean that he was not very friendly during sessions and used to demand money from them . The applicant was also branded as litigious , because he had CARDINAL trials pending before the courts , CARDINAL of them brought with the purpose of contesting decisions taken by his university superiors .

Further on , the article contained the following statements :

In DATE a girl , so young that she was not even DATE , got pregnant . Abortion being illegal , she decided to ask her second cousin , a university assistant at the time , to help her find a doctor . The cousin took advantage of the girl ’s desperate situation . He might have told her that he would tell her mother if she did not let him “ taste ” her at least once . The atmosphere at the time may be inferred from the black and white photos attached . They were taken ... by the cousin himself . Apparently , even from a young age , PERSON had unorthodox habits . After satisfying his needs , ORG remembered that in fact he could not help his cousin , and advised her to sell some jewellery in order to raise money for a doctor . To develop the photos , ORG appealed to a repeat student and amateur photographer ... “ In your DATE you will have an exam with me and wo n’t pass ” ORG said , according to the photographer . The student gave in to the blackmail , but after developing only gave ORG CARDINAL photos instead of CARDINAL . The gesture had its logic , because in DATE , when our student managed to proceed to DATE , ORG tried to raise the stakes , by asking for a non - reimbursable loan of CARDINAL [ NORP ] marks to pass an exam . The student was upset and went to the prosecutor ’s office : “ I made a complaint to the prosecutor ’s office in [ CARDINAL , accusing him of blackmail . I submitted the relevant evidence , namely the first [ set of ] photos , because he later came to me with CARDINAL more films , also porn ... the prosecutor said that we were dealing with a university professor and should leave him alone , not amplify the case .

Why not amplify the case ? We ’ll tell you : because between ORG and ORG , ORG , there is a special relationship , which might also be based on blackmail ... We know that [ M.]I. sold ORG a flat , but this does n’t say much . That would be another case of blackmail , because we heard that ORG ’s obsession with audio - video recordings remained unchanged ... As for the prosecutors who received a complaint from the blackmailed photographer , they were in no hurry to go to talk to the girl in the photos . That would have obliged them to open an investigation ex officio . Instead they sent the victim , the photographer - student , to take statements . And he obtained a statement signed by the girl ’s mother , while the actress in the photos wrote on them “ The man in the photo is PERSON , university as . [ sistant ] at the electrotechnical faculty . ”

Of course such evidence obtained under these circumstances had no legal relevance . The case would normally be greeted with a gracious non - indictment . ... Our photographer can hardly wait for justice to be done and to finish his studies now , DATE after he proceeded to DATE . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against the journalist PERSON and B.B.O. , editor - in - chief of the newspaper , accusing them of defamation , an offence under LAW in force at the time . The applicant alleged that the facts described in the article were not true and that , together with the photographs , they had seriously damaged his reputation . In this connection , the applicant claimed from the CARDINAL defendants MONEY ( ORG ) for non - pecuniary damage and RON CARDINAL for pecuniary damage . As to the compensation for pecuniary damage the applicant alleged that owing to the publication of the article and the photographs in question he could no longer be promoted to a higher position within the university .

R.C. and B.B.O. did not appear before the court , although they had been summoned on several occasions .

CARDINAL witnesses for the applicant were heard by the court . PERSON stated that as far as he knew the applicant , the facts described in the article in dispute were not true . PERSON made a statement in support of the compensation claimed by the applicant for pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG acquitted the CARDINAL defendants . It decided that they had not intended to defame the applicant , since they had merely brought to the public ’s attention certain facts mentioned by other people , with whom the applicant did not have a good relationship . With respect to the photographs complained about , the court briefly held that “ ... it is not clear from the photos whether the person photographed is or is not the injured party [ the applicant ] ” . The court further rejected the applicant ’s compensation claim , stating that there was no connection between the GPE acts and the damage alleged .

An appeal on points of law ( recurs ) brought by the applicant against this decision was allowed by ORG on DATE . It ordered a retrial of the case , due to the fact that the CARDINAL defendants had not been identified and heard by the lower court .

A search conducted by the police concluded that B.B.O. had written the article in question under the alias of PERSON did not appear before the court , although he had been summoned .

On DATE ORG acquitted B.B.O. and rejected the applicant ’s claim for compensation . Quoting the ORG ’s caselaw on freedom of expression , ORG held that the applicant was a public figure and was hence exposed to criticism . The court also held that the defendant had not intended to defame the applicant , as he had just published information that he had collected from other people , such as students , professors , and so on . It also held :

“ The publication of the compromising photos accompanied by comments concerning the ORG identity is a shocking way of exercising the freedom of expression guaranteed by LAW . ...

Restricting the ability to publish documents because [ they ] might harm a person ’s dignity would not be a necessary measure in a NORP society where the journalist ’s sources were credible .

As regards crimes against dignity committed through the media , a journalist ’s investigation is always important and is based on direct and indirect sources , official documents and documents collected through leaked information , official and private statements , some confidential , not all free from doubt . What must be proved beyond any doubt is the journalist ’s bad faith which , in the current case , has not been proved .

The statements of witnesses ORG and PERSON , colleagues and friends of the applicant , with respect to his personality and professional reputation are credible , but strictly only prove the perception of these people . ”

The court analysed the applicant ’s claim for compensation from the standpoint of LAW and decided to reject the claim for non - pecuniary damage since the defendant ’s guilt had not been proved , and the claim for pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision , alleging that the defendant had not been summoned at the correct address and that , in his absence , the judges could not have correctly established the facts or whether he had acted in good or bad faith . The applicant further submitted that B.B.O. had not acted in good faith . Firstly , because he had never contacted him for his version of the facts and secondly , because according to his criminal record attached to the file , the journalist had several previous convictions for slander and defamation . The applicant also alleged that the journalist had made accusations which attracted criminal sanctions , and therefore their truthfulness could and should have been verified by the courts .

On DATE ORG finally dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ill - founded . The court held that , even though it may have been defamatory , having in mind the applicant ’s profession and the media ’s role in a NORP society , the article in question had just drawn attention to the behaviour of a public figure in the exercise of his functions . The court further held that the defendant journalist had wanted to “ expose certain backstage games and interests in a higher education institution ... with a view to remedying the situation and maintaining good educational process ” . The applicant ’s specific reasons for appealing on points of law , such as the incorrect summoning and the failure to hear the defendant ’s statement and verify the truthfulness of the allegations published by the defendant , were not analysed by the court .


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

NORP The applicant , ORG ( “ the applicant organisation ” ) , is based in GPE , GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise their right to do so .

Prior to the dissolution of ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) there were ORG and chambers of commerce for each of the various federal units ( that is to say in each of the Republics – GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE and in GPE , GPE and GPE ) . The said NORP chambers of commerce were functionally and commercially independent of each other and chambers of commerce of the federal units had no property stake in ORG .

After the dissolution of the SFRY , GPE ( which consisted of GPE and GPE ) enacted a law on DATE by which ORG ceased to exist and ORG was established . On DATE the NORP parliament enacted a law by which ORG ceased to exist and all of its assets were divided between ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG against ORG and ORG . In its claim , the applicant argued that by enacting the legislation of CARDINAL DATE ORG had deprived it of its share of the property of the former ORG . The applicant organisation sought , inter alia , a judicial declaration to the effect that it was the rightful owner of PERCENT of a number of parcels of real estate then co - owned by the respondents .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings on the matter .

On DATE the court adjourned the proceedings , stating that the entire matter needed to be regulated between GPE and GPE by means of a bilateral treaty , which it deemed to constitute a preliminary legal issue ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court referred to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Annex G to ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

On DATE the applicant organisation lodged an appeal .

On DATE the appeal was supplemented with an opinion by ORG attesting that the applicant organisation was not a State body and that the real estate in question was consequently not a succession - related issue .

On DATE the High Commercial Court upheld the adjournment decision of DATE . The court stated , inter alia , that the successor ORG would conclude bilateral agreements with a view to stipulating the appropriate procedures and the bodies to be entrusted with the processing of claims such as the plaintiff ’s . However , should claims of this sort be rejected within the said procedure , it would ultimately be up to the courts of law to adjudicate on the matter . The applicant organisation received a copy of the High Commercial Court ’s decision of DATE .

Article CARDINAL , read in conjunction with LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , published in ORG no . CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that a court may suspend ongoing civil proceedings if it decides not to rule on a preliminary legal issue ( prethodno pitanje ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o prestanku važenja zakona o ORG , ORG no . CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ From the date of the entry into force of this LAW , ORG ( “ ORG of FRY ” CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) is repealed .

All the assets , liabilities , business affairs and archives of ORG of GPE shall be taken over by ORG and ORG .

The assets and liabilities mentioned in the first paragraph of this article shall be divided in proportion to the financial contributions of ORG and ORG to ORG ... in accordance with the agreement which shall be concluded between ORG and ORG subject to prior approval of ORG and GPE . ”

NORP In decision no . Pž . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE the GPE High Commercial Court held as follows :

“ It is the opinion of this court that ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG point to the intention of LAW the successor States – to conclude bilateral agreements with a view to regulating the procedure for deciding the claims and which would establish the state organs to decide on the mentioned claims , applying the provisions of the LAW , and to decide on property claims in respect of movable and immovable assets . Only upon the conclusion of the procedure established by the bilateral agreement and ... before the relevant state organs set up by the [ bilateral ] agreement , in the event that claims are contested , will the court decide on them . Therefore , the mentioned provisions of the LAW do not exclude the court ’s jurisdiction in respect of property - based claims but , in the chamber ’s view , this jurisdiction is conditional on [ the holding of ] prior proceedings before state bodies set up by bilateral treaties and in accordance with the procedure set up by the said treaties , in accordance with LAW Consequently , the conclusion of a bilateral treaty and the completion of the proceedings set up by it ... [ constitute ] preliminary legal issues and the further actions of the court depend on their being resolved ... ”

The relevant provisions of ORG ( Zakon o Hrvatskoj gospodarskoj komori , published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ ORG is an independent ... business - related organisation which promotes , represents and co - ordinates the common interests of its members before governmental bodies and other authorities , inside the country and abroad . ”

ORG has the status of a legal person . ”

“ Members of ORG are all legal and physical persons who carry out economic activities [ and whose ] headquarters [ are ] on the territory of GPE . ”

“ The manner of election for the bodies of ORG , and their structure and responsibilities shall be determined by LAW . ”

“ ORG shall perform specific public functions , as determined by law .

ORG , certificates and other documents issued by ORG in the execution of public functions shall have the character and significance of official documents . ”

“ ORG may establish representative offices abroad , subject to approval from ORG . ”

“ The funds necessary for the work of ORG shall be secured through the contributions made or the membership fees paid by ... [ its ] ... members , through compensation received for any services rendered , and through other sources . ”

ORG ( hereinafter “ the CCE ” ) would currently appear to be carrying out a number of lawfully delegated functions related to , inter alia , the following : ( a ) issuing various import , export and transport certificates ; ( b ) harmonising road transport costs and schedules ; ( c ) recording details of property which could be sold in enforcement and insolvency proceedings ; ( d ) conducting the public sale of movable property ; ( e ) organising specialist exams for real estate agents and for persons providing public road transport services ; ( f ) keeping a register of all printed media ; and ( g ) offering mediation services in consumer protection lawsuits .

On DATE ORG adopted decision U‑III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL by which it declared inadmissible a constitutional complaint lodged against the judgment of ORG ) of the CCE due to the failure of the complainant to exhaust other available remedies , that is to say to lodge a request for the protection of his constitutional rights with ORG .

The decisions on financing of the ORG ’s work for DATE contain membership fees and revenue from the exercise of the public functions as main sources of funding ( see www.hgk.hr/financiranje-hgk-i-nacin-ispunjavanja-uplatnice , as accessed on DATE ) .

This Agreement was the result of DATE of negotiations . It was signed on DATE and entered into force between GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ( later succeeded by GPE ) , GPE and the former GPE on DATE .

Annex G to this Agreement deals with “ private property and acquired rights ” .

DATE of Annex G reads as follows :

“ The successor GPE shall take such action as may be required by the general principles of law and are otherwise appropriate to ensure the effective application of the principles set out in this ORG , such as concluding bilateral agreements and notifying their courts and other competent authorities . ”

At the meetings of the joint standing committee established under LAW held on DATE and DATE , the committee adopted recommendations concerning , inter alia , ORG to the ORG . The committee noted that the application of the provisions of ORG had not been effective enough , and recommended that the successor ORG conclude bilateral agreements for the purpose of the effective implementation of those provisions . It also advised them to refrain from passing any legislation or undertaking any steps contrary to the provisions of ORG , and to adopt , should they deem it necessary , measures intended to enable the effective application of the standards set out in Annex G.

On the official website of the ORG , the ORG is described as a public institution which represents NORP economic interests , belonging to the so - called continental chamber system , with compulsory membership . The website further states that the ORG pays special attention to the execution of public power entrusted to it to carry out successfully its role of providing a service to its members as well as a link between the ORG authorities and the business community ( see www.hgk.hr/english/about-us , as accessed on DATE ) .

NORP The continental or public - law system of chambers – which are established and regulated by national legislation and whereby CARDINAL of the areas of activity of the chamber is the execution of public functions – has been adopted by many of the GPE Member GPE , such as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE ( see iccwbo.org/chamber-services/world-chambers-federation/history-chamber-movement/ and www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articles/government-wants-voluntary-membership-of-chamber-of-commerce-and-industry , as accessed on DATE ) .