CASE OF COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCIÉS v. FRANCE

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The applicants are the publication director and the publisher respectively of the DATE magazine ORG . PERSON ORG is a NORP national and was born in DATE . The company LOC , a legal entity incorporated under NORP law , has its registered office in PERSON .

On DATE the NORP newspaper ORG published claims by PERSON , alleging that PERSON , reigning Prince of GPE since his father ’s death on DATE , was the father of her son . The article referred to the forthcoming report in ORG magazine and reproduced the main points of that report , together with CARDINAL photographs , CARDINAL of which showed the Prince holding the child in his arms .

On DATE , having been informed that an article was about to appear in GPE Match , PERSON served notice on the applicants to refrain from publishing the article in question .

In spite of the notice to refrain , the DATE magazine ORG , in its edition no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL copies of which were printed , published an interview in which PERSON presented her son A. as having been born from her intimate relationship with the Prince , who had succeeded his father on DATE . PERSON on the magazine ’s cover under the headline “ PERSON of GPE : A. , the secret child ” ( “ PERSON : A. , l’enfant secret ” ) the CARDINAL - page article , entitled “ A. is PERSON ’s son , says his mother ” , included several photographs showing the Prince beside PERSON or the child . Those of the Prince and the child had been taken by PERSON with the Prince ’s consent . PERSON , who had sole parental authority , had handed them over to ORG for publication .

The article , in which PERSON to the questions put by a journalist , gave details about the circumstances in which she had met the Prince , their meetings , their intimate relationship and feelings , the way in which the Prince had reacted to the news of PERSON pregnancy and how he had behaved on meeting the child . It noted that the boy had been born on DATE and that the Prince had formally recognised him before a notary on DATE , but had requested that this fact should not be made public before the death of his own father , Prince PERSON .

On DATE the Prince brought proceedings against the applicants in the PERSON tribunal de grande instance on the basis of LAW , seeking compensation for invasion of privacy and infringement of his right to protection of his image through the publication of the above - mentioned article on DATE .

On DATE the court allowed the Prince ’s claim , awarding him MONEY in damages and ordering that details of the judgment be printed in a full - page feature on the magazine ’s front page , on pain of a DATE fine and at the publisher ’s expense , under the headline “ Court order made against ORG at the request of Prince PERSON of GPE ” . The judgment was immediately enforceable .

NORP In allowing the Prince ’s claims , the court noted , in particular , that from the first page onwards , the magazine disclosed the Prince ’s paternity through the headline “ PERSON of GPE : A. , the secret child ” , accompanied by a photograph showing him holding the child .

It added that the CARDINAL - page article dealt with the issue of the Prince ’s father - son relationship with the child , by means of questions which led the child ’s mother to discuss her relationship with the Prince , the feelings of those involved , the GPE ’s private life and reactions and the child ’s recognition child before a notary . It added that numerous photographs , clearly taken in the context of the intimacy of the ORG private life , had been deliberately chosen to illustrate and lend support to the disclosure ; they were accompanied by the magazine ’s own captions , which also referred to the PERSON ’s emotional life , analysing his conduct , his reactions to the young woman and the child , and speculating as to his feelings with regard to this secret child .

The court considered that the entire article and the accompanying pictures came within the most intimate sphere of emotional and family life and that they were not apt to be the subject of any debate of general interest .

It added that the claimant ’s accession to the throne of the Principality of GPE did not deprive him of the right to respect for his private life , nor of his right to protection of his own image in the face of mere rumours concerning the civil status of a child , which could not serve as a legitimate pretext for providing information to a prying and curious public about the lives of public figures , their feelings and their private conduct . In addition , the court held that a newspaper could not seriously claim to take the place of the courtroom , where the rights of children and women were lawfully defended .

The court concluded that the impugned article , which treated rumours in a sensational manner , both in its wording and through the completely irrelevant accompanying pictures , amounted to a serious breach of the claimant ’s fundamental personality rights , the latter having specifically served notice by a bailiff on the publishing company to respect those rights on DATE .

The applicants appealed against that judgment and obtained a suspension of the judgment ’s immediate enforceability .

On DATE the Prince issued a statement in which he publicly recognised the child . The notarised document was entered in the register of births , deaths and marriages during the same period .

On DATE ORG gave judgment .

It noted that , through the interview with the child ’s mother , the impugned article focused on revealing the birth of the child , who was presented as having been born from the intimate relationship she had conducted with the Prince since DATE .

Furthermore , on DATE of the article ’s publication , both his birth and his father ’s identity were unknown to the public .

The court of appeal emphasised that emotional , love or family life and issues of paternity and maternity came within the sphere of private life and were protected by LAW and LAW , which , according to the court , made no distinction between anonymous persons and public figures , whatever their civil , political or religious functions .

It noted that the fact of the Prince ’s fatherhood “ had never been publicly recognised ” , that LAW made it impossible for a child born outside wedlock to accede to the throne and that the Prince had not given his consent to the disclosure of his possible paternity of the child , having on CARDINAL DATE indicated to the applicant company his opposition to the publication of those facts . In consequence , it concluded that the applicant company had deliberately breached the provisions of LAW and of LAW . It considered that this offence could not be justified by the requirements of current affairs reporting , the legitimacy of the information or readers’ right to information , which did not cover the Prince ’s secret paternity , even if he had become the reigning Prince of the ORG since his father ’s death in DATE .

The court of appeal further noted that the article did not merely disclose the existence of a “ secret ” child . It also contained numerous digressions derived from the confessions made by the child ’s mother , concerning the circumstances of their meeting , the Prince ’s feelings , his most intimate reactions in response to the news of the pregnancy and his attitude towards the child during private encounters . It considered that this could not be justified by the concomitant publication of these facts in a NORP magazine , or by the media impact caused by the content of the article , or by the fact that other publications had subsequently repeated these reports ( which had become common knowledge through the fault of the publishing company ) , or by the alleged legitimacy of such a disclosure . The child had no official status which would have rendered his birth and the disclosure of the father ’s identify a subject which the media , as part of their duty to provide information , were required to bring to the public ’s attention .

It found that although the photographs which accompanied the article and showed the respondent with the child had been taken by the latter ’s mother and with the Prince ’s consent , he had not consented to their publication , and that consequently she was at fault .

The court of appeal concluded that the publication in question had caused the Prince irreversible damage , in that the fact that he was the child ’s father , which he had wished to keep secret , and which had remained so from the child ’s birth until publication of the impugned article , had suddenly become public knowledge , against his wishes . The non - pecuniary damage thus caused justified the issuing of an order for publication , as supplementary compensation , which , in view of the nature of the breach and the seriousness of its consequences , was in no way disproportionate to the competing interests and , on the contrary , represented the most adequate redress in such circumstances .

ORG upheld the contested judgement , in particular the payment of MONEY in damages , and merely varied the conditions of the order for publication , which was no longer to appear under a headline and occupy CARDINAL third of the front cover . Thus , the court ordered that in the first issue to be published in DATE following service of the judgment , a box covering the lower third of the front page and containing the following text was to be printed on a white background , failing which the applicant company would be fined CARDINAL per issue :

“ By a judgment of ORG , upholding the judgment delivered by the PERSON tribunal de grande instance , the company ORG in issue no . CARDINAL , dated CARDINAL DATE , of the newspaper ORG , in an article entitled ‘ PERSON of GPE : A. The secret ORG has been found to have invaded the privacy and infringed the right to his own image of PERSON of GPE . ”

This statement was published on the front cover of edition no . CARDINAL of the magazine , dated DATE , under the following editorial commentary : “ PERSON of GPE : The truth is condemned . ORG disclosed the existence of his son , A. The courts have penalised freedom to impart information . The international press reacts to support us . ”

The applicants appealed on points of law . In their further pleadings , they relied , in particular , on LAW , given that the disclosure of the Prince ’s paternity was a matter of public life and was justified by the requirements of imparting information , in view of the functions that he occupied as sovereign of a ORG with a hereditary monarchy .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds , inter alia , that :

“ ... every person , whatever his rank , birth , property or present or future functions , is entitled to respect for his private life ; the judgment notes on the one hand that , on the date on which the article was published , the child ’s existence and his family relationship were unknown to the public , and that , on the other , the ORG ’s LAW rules out the possibility of his accession to the throne , since he was born outside wedlock , a situation that , moreover , the company did not allege to be a subject of debate in LANGUAGE or Monegasque society or of examination in the impugned publication , and , lastly , [ that ] the article contained multiple digressions on the circumstances in which PERSON and PERSON met and about their relationship , the Prince ’s reactions to the news of the pregnancy and his subsequent attitude towards the child ; in the light of these findings and considerations , the court of appeal correctly noted the lack of any topical news item or any debate on a matter of general interest which justified its being reported at the time of the impugned publication on the grounds of legitimate imparting of information to the public ; moreover , the publication of photographs of a person to illustrate subsequent content which amounted to an invasion of his privacy necessarily infringes his right to control of one ’s own image . ”

The interview with PERSON and the disputed photographs were also published in the NORP DATE magazine ORG CARDINAL DATE .

Having brought urgent proceedings against this magazine in order to prevent any further publication , the Prince ’s case was dismissed on DATE by a judgment of ORG ( ORG ) , upheld on DATE by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) .

The NORP courts placed the public ’s right to information over the PERSON ’s interests in protection of his private life , having regard to his status as sovereign of a NORP principality . They described him as an “ undeniable figure of contemporary society ” and considered that the issue of a male descendent was of decisive importance in a constitutional hereditary monarchy , given that a change to the rule prohibiting a child born out of wedlock from claiming the Monegasque throne could not be ruled out in the future .

They considered that it was for the child ’s mother , and not for the Prince , who had not recognised him , to decide whether the disclosure of the child ’s existence fell within the protected private sphere . However , ORG ordered that a photograph showing the Prince in PERSON ’s company was not to be published .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Kristina Pardalos;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo

On DATE ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law . The Commission stated that the land had changed its destination from agricultural land to construction land . A handwritten note signed by the chairman of the Commission states that the decision became final on DATE . On DATE , following the applicants’ request for information about whether their property was still occupied , ORG affirmed that the plot was occupied by the army .

To date , no compensation has been paid .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicants are NORP nationals or had their habitual residence in GPE . At the time of lodging their applications they were detained at a detention centre for foreign nationals in the town of PERSON , GPE ( ОСУСВИГ – “ the detention centre ” ) , run by the local ORG ( “ ORG ” ) .

NORP The applicant PERSON ( application no . MONEY ) was born in DATE . He entered GPE on DATE . He was detained on DATE . He is a stateless NORP who had his habitual residence in GPE . He was not in possession of a valid national ID at the time of detention , and his identity was established by an immigration officer in GPE in DATE .

The applicant PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was born in DATE . He entered GPE on DATE . He was detained on DATE .

NORP The applicant PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was born in DATE . He entered GPE on DATE . He was detained on DATE and has a brother , PERSON , who received temporary asylum in GPE and is married to a NORP national , PERSON

On DATE and DATE ( see Appendix ) the applicants were detained by the police and officers of the ORG at a clothing factory in ORG .

On DATE and DATE ( see Appendix ) ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) examined the ORG administrative files , found them guilty of administrative offences ( breach of immigration rules and working without a permit ) and ordered them to pay fines of CARDINAL Russian roubles ( RUB ) and their expulsion to GPE , in line with the procedure under LAW . The applicants all stated in court that they feared for their lives if returned to GPE and referred to information about the ongoing and widespread conflict there . The court found these statements to be general in nature and unsupported by any relevant evidence . The applicants also referred to the absence of work in GPE and the fact that in GPE they had been able to work illegally . ORG then focused on the economic motives of their arrival and illegal stay . Pending expulsion the court ordered their detention at the detention centre .

NORP The lawyer representing the applicants before the ORG lodged appeals for all CARDINAL of them , describing in detail the general situation in GPE and the danger of returning there , and citing and attaching the relevant country reports produced by the ORG and ORG . She also cited a circular letter issued by ORG on DATE to its regional branches , according to which no entry was possible into NORP territory in view of the hostilities and problems that would arise with the execution of court judgments ordering expulsion there . The lawyer argued , in detail , that the decisions to expel the applicants could not be implemented ; in such circumstances their detention lost any purpose and became indefinite . The lawyer further cited an ORG circular letter of DATE entitled “ On the situation in GPE and the work with persons originating from GPE ” , which stated that “ in the current difficult political situation , when the NORP authorities are unable to provide effective protection of their citizens from the illegal actions of the armed opposition ... most of the applicants ... have fled the country as a result of the armed conflict . ... Individuals who can not not safely return [ to GPE ] and have a well - founded fear of ill - treatment , including torture , should be given temporary asylum ” . The statements of appeal further referred to the fact that the applicants had sought asylum in GPE ; their expulsion would therefore be contrary to the relevant legislation . ORG in GPE produced a letter to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) in respect of GPE , reiterating its position in respect of returns to GPE and arguing that any decision relating to expulsion there while his asylum request was pending would be in breach of domestic and international legislation . Similar letters were produced in respect of the CARDINAL other applicants . The applicants also referred to a decision of ORG taken earlier in DATE relating to a NORP national in a similar situation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG rejected all CARDINAL appeals on DATE , following which the expulsion orders entered into force . It stressed the applicants’ illegal stay in GPE and their reference to economic difficulties as their reason for departure from their home country . It found that the alleged danger to the applicants’ lives as a result of the ongoing conflict did not in itself constitute sufficient grounds to exclude expulsion in respect of those guilty of administrative offences in the sphere of immigration .

In respect of GPE , in a separate decision of DATE , ORG refused to amend the expulsion order . The court noted that he had not applied for asylum in GPE until DATE , a fact which “ did not affect the lawfulness of the decision taken by ORG concerning the applicant ’s administrative offence and expulsion ” .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to stay execution in respect of PERSON , pointing out that ORG had applied Rule CARDINAL and therefore the expulsion could not be carried out at that time . On DATE ORG found that LAW did not provide for stays of expulsion as opposed to the payment of fines and dismissed the request .

On DATE ORG issued a similar decision in respect of GPE , pursuant to a request by ORG on DATE . None of the parties were present at the hearing , including GPE

It appears from the letter of DATE sent by ORG to the applicants’ lawyer that it was unaware at that date of ORG decisions . From the same letter it appears that a similar request had been made for a stay of execution in respect of PERSON

Since DATE and DATE the applicants have been detained at the detention centre .

According to the Government ’s observations received in DATE , PERSON escaped on DATE . An internal report was prepared by the head of the NORP FMS DATE , describing the events as follows :

“ In TIME of DATE , between CARDINAL and CARDINAL a.m. , a group of foreign nationals and stateless people detained pending administrative deportation from the [ detention centre ] escaped from the LOC ... The group included ... [ PERSON ] , a NORP national , born on DATE ... An investigation has established that the people used an unfinished ventilation shaft located between the ground and first floors of the building . Having reached the first floor , the people jumped out of the window onto a pile of construction rubbish and , having covered the surveillance devices ... with a blanket , left the grounds of the centre with the aid of construction materials stored in the courtyard .

The exact circumstances of the escape are being established . An internal investigation is being held in respect of the staff who had allowed the CARDINAL foreign nationals to escape .

The local police have been told to organise a search for the people who have escaped . ”

NORP The applicants’ representative claimed to have had no knowledge of the escape prior to receiving the Government ’s observations , expressing her concern that they had not submitted the information earlier , for example when making their observations of DATE .

NORP In reply to the ORG ’s further questions in this regard , in their observations of DATE the Government explained that no administrative or criminal proceedings had been initiated , as an escape from a detention centre for foreign nationals pending deportation was not an offence under any legislation . While the police continued to search for the detainees , their whereabouts , including those of PERSON , remained unknown .

The Government further submitted that since their observations had been based on the replies of the competent ORG authorities prepared on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , no information about PERSON ’s escape had been provided at that stage . They also submitted that the detention centre had been under no obligation to inform GPE representatives of the escape , hence why it had not done so in PERSON ’s case .

NORP The applicants’ representative confirmed that she had not been aware of PERSON ’s escape prior to the meeting with the CARDINAL other applicants on DATE and submitted that she had no knowledge of PERSON ’s current whereabouts .

From the documents submitted by the Government in DATE , it appears that PERSON sought refugee status in GPE on DATE by applying to the GPE Region FMS . On DATE this request was accepted for consideration on the merits and the applicant was questioned and issued with an appropriate document .

On DATE PERSON ’s application for refugee status was dismissed . The decision of the ORG stated that he had submitted no information to support his claims of persecution in GPE . His family remained in that country and he could have used the “ internal flight alternative ” to another part of GPE , or claimed asylum in a transit country . He reasoned his request to remain in GPE by his wish to work there and did not therefore fall under the definition of refugee .

The applicant did not obtain a copy of that decision and did not appeal against it .

After their arrest the CARDINAL applicants applied for refugee status . They submitted the relevant applications to the local ORG in GPE ; PERSON and PERSON on DATE and GPE on DATE .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicants also submitted requests for temporary asylum in GPE , which were drawn up in LANGUAGE and translated by Z.A.

In DATE the CARDINAL applicants were questioned by the Kaluga FMS . They indicated that the reasons for their departure from GPE were the war and danger to their lives . PERSON stated that he was from GPE and had lost contact with his family , parents and siblings after his departure in DATE . PERSON stated that he had fled GPE after his neighbourhood had been taken over by “ terrorists ” who had killed CARDINAL of people there , including his close male relatives , which he had witnessed . He had also lost contact with his family after DATE . PERSON had been in GPE but had no right of return as he was a stateless NORP . He had also lost contact with the members of his family who had remained in GPE . All applicants stressed that they were afraid to go back because of the hostilities which had caused their departure , and said that they feared being forcibly drafted into the armed forces .

On DATE the NORP FMS decided that their applications for refugee status should be considered on the merits and issued appropriate certificates to them .

In parallel proceedings , also in DATE , the CARDINAL applicants were questioned by the ORG in order to obtain temporary asylum in GPE .

On DATE PERSON signed a paper in NORP stating that he had asked for his request for “ temporary asylum in GPE dated DATE ” not to be considered since he “ intended to return to his home in GPE ” . The paper was also signed by a translator , Z.A.

On DATE a similar paper was signed by PERSON which stated that “ he and his wife intended to go to GPE ” . The paper was also signed by Z.A.

According to the ORG ’s observations of DATE , these requests served as the basis of the ORG decisions to terminate the proceedings in respect of these CARDINAL applicants , both in respect of their request for refugee status and temporary asylum . No documents were submitted in this regard .

On DATE the NORP FMS decided to refuse ORG request for refugee status . It considered that he faced no threat of persecution on the grounds set out in FAC . On DATE the Kaluga FMS , for the same reasons , refused him temporary asylum .

On DATE ORG reviewed ORG appeal against the decision not to grant him temporary asylum . He was not taken to the trial even though the decision stated that he had been notified , and he did not have a representative . A representative of the ORG appeared before the court , which briefly restated the reasons for the ORG decision to refuse the applicant both refugee and temporary asylum status and confirmed that there were no reasons to regard him as in need of protection . Neither the general situation in GPE nor the applicant ’s submissions about the situation in GPE had been raised or discussed . This decision was sent to GPE on DATE . It is unclear if he appealed against it .

On DATE GPE and PERSON submitted new written requests for refugee status , which were accepted for consideration by the NORP FMS on DATE . On DATE , however , both applicants signed papers in NORP stating that they had asked for their requests for “ temporary asylum in GPE dated DATE ” not to be considered . The papers stated that they had been translated and written by Z.A.

The Government , in their observations of DATE , explained that the contradictory position taken by PERSON prevented the ORG from considering his new application on the merits . PERSON ’s new application was not considered either .

The applicants submitted that severe restrictions had been placed on them meeting with their representatives . As a result , despite numerous attempts and complaints , GPE and GPE only had CARDINAL meeting with them on DATE . M.A. had CARDINAL meeting with his brother and PERSON on DATE , which lasted TIME . PERSON did not meet with a representative prior to his escape from the detention centre ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The applicants submitted copies of their exchange with various officials in the NORP FMS and prosecutor ’s office regarding their detention and access to representatives . From these letters it appears that on several occasions the applicants’ CARDINAL lawyers , PERSON and PERSON Yermolayeva , a lawyer of ORG , PERSON , a member of the GPE branch of FAC who had assisted the applicants with their complaints , PERSON , as well as PERSON ’s brother and his wife , wrote to these agencies regarding a lack of access to the detention centre and the conditions of detention of people detained there . Their exchanges may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the head of the detention centre responded to PERSON , stating that visits by lawyers and human rights defenders were possible DATE TIME On DATE the NORP FMS informed the regional prosecutor ’s office that visits by representatives , relatives and human rights defenders were possible upon the written request of detainees , or upon the written request of their representatives or human rights defenders if accompanied by a written request by the detainee for legal assistance from them . Visits outside of TIME had to be agreed in advance with the detention centre administration , to ensure the proper functioning of the centre . If a detainee requested in writing to be represented by anyone , the centre would consider the issue of ensuring a visit from the representative , accompanied by a notary , to certify a power of attorney .

On DATE PERSON ’s lawyer wrote to the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office . She pointed out that the applicant had been refused access to his representatives , and that the conditions of detention at the detention centre were harsher than for people who had been detained on criminal charges . Detainees were kept in their rooms for most of DATE ; they had no means of communication with anybody and could not contact each other or their representatives . The letter further stressed the absence of any flight connection with GPE and the impossibility of expelling the applicant there .

On DATE the NORP FMS informed the regional prosecutor ’s office that on DATE PERSON had asked to be allowed to meet with the CARDINAL applicants and an NORP national , T. The staff of the centre had refused to allow her to meet with the applicants , since she had not had an interpreter present and could not communicate with them . She had attempted to pass documents in NORP to the applicants ( complaints against the domestic court decisions ) through ORG , but they had been found by the detention centre staff . PERSON had been reminded to come back accompanied by an interpreter . Furthermore , the detainees had signed documents refusing to meet with PERSON since she had asked them for money for her services .

On DATE the head of ORG wrote to ORG . She pointed out that the applicants’ confinement in the detention centre appeared unlawful in the absence of any time - limit or purpose , since the expulsion could not be carried out . She further pointed to the fact that the applicants had submitted applications for temporary asylum , and that their conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading , since the food was of poor quality and they had little access to fresh air , outdoor exercise , meaningful activities or information . The letter further stated that the detention centre staff had threatened and harassed detainees , and that the applicants had been pressed to withdraw their applications for asylum . The letter also referred to the difficulties in meeting the inmates .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyers submitted a letter to ORG , with copies to the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office and ORG . They pointed out that the applicants’ conditions of detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment . PERSON had been diagnosed with pneumonia , but had not received adequate medical help . The applicants had been unable to meet with their relatives and representatives . The food was of poor quality , consisted mostly of cereals and was often served cold . The applicants complained that they had been harassed and threatened by the staff , threatened with reprisals if they complained , and encouraged to withdraw their applications for asylum and discharge their representatives . In the absence of any real possibility of expelling the applicants to GPE , their detention had turned into an open - ended punishment without any possibility of review .

On DATE the NORP FMS wrote to the NORP regional ombudsman , noting that on DATE ORG had rejected the ORG appeals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) while they were assisted by a lawyer and interpreter . In their letter of DATE the NORP FMS informed the regional prosecutor ’s office that the GPE rights had not been infringed . The court hearing of DATE relating to staying execution of the expulsion order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not required the applicants’ presence , and an interpreter had been invited to the detention centre on DATE , who had translated the court decision to the applicants . On the same day PERSON had decided to withdraw his application for temporary asylum and refuse any further assistance from PERSON , signing the relevant documents .

Writing to the applicants’ lawyer on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and the regional prosecutor ’s office on DATE , the NORP FMS provided information about the medical assistance given to the applicants . In respect of GPE , the letters stated that he had been examined by a doctor upon arrival , that an interpreter had assisted him on DATE in communicating with the detention centre doctor , who had administered treatment , and that on CARDINAL and DATE he had again been examined by a doctor and sent for a chest PERSON . His condition had been described as “ satisfactory ” and improved . The letters went on to state that the detention rooms had a ventilation system installed , that the shower and toilets , although not in the rooms , were undergoing renovation so that they would all be on CARDINAL floor , that there was a courtyard for walks , and that the detention centre staff had treated detainees with respect and never allowed any behaviour which could escalate into arguments . The staff included a doctor , a psychologist and a medical disinfection specialist . On DATE PERSON had signed a paper refusing any further assistance from PERSON On DATE the remaining CARDINAL applicants had also expressed their wish to withdraw their requests for asylum .

On DATE PERSON signed a letter in NORP addressed to the NORP FMS stating that its officers had forced him to sign documents in NORP he could not understand and which , as it turned out , had cancelled his asylum request and prevented him meeting with his representative , PERSON As a result , he had not met with her , and the only meeting he had attended had been with his brother and sister - in - law on DATE , which had only lasted TIME . The applicant further stated that he and PERSON were under constant surveillance , had received threats from the staff and were unable to write and send letters or make complaints . The treatment was allegedly because of their application to the ORG . The papers signed by the applicants about their unwillingness to have their asylum requests considered had been obtained under duress and they had had no idea what they had signed . The applicant ’s requests to meet with his relatives and representatives had not been granted . He further complained that he had not been given any personal hygiene products and could not shave or cut his hair , and that he and PERSON were being kept in isolation and had very little contact with other detainees , allegedly because they had applied to ORG . They had also been told that their expulsion to GPE would take place anyway and that their complaints would have no effect . The letter ended with a request to be allowed unrestricted meetings with his relatives and representatives , including PERSON

DATE . On DATE , ORG ’s sister - in - law , wrote to the GPE - based human rights NGO Civic Assistance . On DATE she and her husband PERSON , ORG ’s brother , produced affidavits to the applicant ’s lawyers in GPE . From these documents it appears that both brothers had left GPE in GPE because of the hostilities there , that their neighbourhood had been destroyed , that many of their relatives had been killed , and that they had no contact with the surviving family members . They had been unable to meet with PERSON at the detention centre , with the exception of CARDINAL brief visit on DATE . The visit had lasted TIME and a detention centre officer had been present . When PERSON had started to write down a complaint in LANGUAGE , it had been taken away by the officer who had said that it was not allowed . PERSON had not been aware that he had signed a withdrawal of his asylum request prior to the meeting with his relatives . He had said that he had signed the papers under pressure from the ORG staff . His brother had managed to covertly obtain his signature on a complaint and a request to be allowed visit from his relatives and representative , PERSON had also told them that on DATE he had been visited by an ORG officer from PERSON PERSON ) , accompanied by an interpreter , who had told him that he would be expelled to GPE as soon as his travel documents were issued by ORG .

On DATE Mr GPE of ORG submitted a complaint to the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office . He stated that he had arrived at the detention centre and had produced an order for representing PERSON and a copy of his bar membership card DATE ; however , its staff had refused to allow him to meet with his client , referring to the absence of any signed agreement to represent him or permission for the meeting issued by the Kaluga ORG . The ORG had further informed him that the review of his request would take DATE . Mr PERSON referred to the provisions of domestic legislation which permitted a lawyer to meet with his client and asked for his client ’s right to legal aid to be restored .

On DATE lawyers PERSON and PERSON Yermolayeva met with the CARDINAL applicants and took affidavits from them regarding their detention and asylum request situation .

PERSON stated that he was detained in a spacious room with CARDINAL other detainees ; it had a toilet and running cold water . A hot shower could be taken DATE on another floor upon request . The room was clean and had sufficient natural and artificial lighting , which was switched off during TIME . There were no hygiene problems with insects and the bed linen was changed once DATE . Detainees spent their time in their rooms , day and night , except when they went for walks . There were CARDINAL nurses who administered medical treatment as necessary . He insisted that he wanted his asylum claim to be considered and unrestricted access and the ability to communicate with his representative , including in writing . When asked , PERSON stated that he had been assaulted by the staff on DATE after some of the detainees had escaped ; CARDINAL of the wardens had twisted his hand painfully .

M.A. stated that while at the detention centre , he had been beaten twice , in DATE , when the staff had found him to be in possession of the Koran , and on DATE , when CARDINAL of the NORP detainees had escaped . He had been beaten so that he would disclose details about the escape . After the beatings he had stayed in bed for DATE and could not eat . He stated that he had not been allowed to make complaints or send letters , and had been denied access to his representatives and relatives . He had not been allowed to attend the court hearing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) even though he had asked to . He also confirmed that he had wanted to meet with his representatives , including PERSON and had expected his claim for asylum to be processed . He stated that the ORG staff had threatened him and told him that his complaints would not help and that he would be spending DATE in prison anyway .

Following these submissions , on DATE the applicants’ lawyers wrote a letter to the NORP regional prosecutor ’s office pointing at the illegal nature of the applicants’ detention , since their expulsion could not be carried out and there were no terms or possibility of review of the detention . They also stressed that the applicants’ conditions of detention were similar to people in pre - trial detention , while the restrictions on visits and correspondence were illegal and in direct contradiction to the information contained in the letters from the detention centre administration . The letter stressed that the absence of contact with relatives , lawyers and representatives amounted in itself to inhuman treatment since it had serious psychological effects on the applicants .

On DATE signed a request addressed to the Kaluga FMS to be allowed meetings with his representatives , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , as well as his brother PERSON PERSON A. and sister - in - law PERSON

NORP In reply to the ORG ’s additional questions , in DATE the Government submitted more detailed information about the applicants’ conditions of detention .

On DATE the head of the CARDINAL FMS ordered that meetings with people detained in the detention centre could be authorised for close relatives by its head upon presentation of documents proving they were related . Visits by representatives and human rights defenders could be authorised by the head of the NORP FMS , and the detainee could submit a written request to the head of the detention centre .

According to the detention centre ’s DATE routine issued by its head on DATE , DATE walks were to last no less than an TIME per inmate . TIME a day was set aside for telephone contact and TIME for meetings with visitors and receiving parcels . TIME every day was set aside for meetings with the administration .

The Government submitted extracts from the applicants’ medical files , from which it appears that they had been examined upon arrival at the centre and found to be in good health . PERSON had been treated for bronchitis and pneumonia in DATE , and on DATE his health was improving . He had also had an incident of high blood pressure on DATE , which had been successfully treated . PERSON had been diagnosed with pulpitis and gastric problems and had received treatment . He had seen the doctor on CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE . M.A. had not consulted the medical staff .

According to the Government , GPE and GPE were detained in room no . CARDINAL on the first floor of the CARDINAL - storey building , which measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL people . A toilet was accessible from the room , and there was a shared bathroom on the ground floor . The outdoor exercise yard measured QUANTITY . The Government provided photos of the rooms , sanitary facilities , canteen and the yard .