Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE . According to the latest information in the ORG ’s possession , he was serving a sentence in ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to ORG and ORG ( Švietimo ir mokslo ministerija , hereinafter “ the Ministry ” ) , requesting information about the possibility of enrolling at university . He mentioned having graduated in DATE from ORG . The applicant stated that he wished to pursue studies via distance learning to acquire a second university degree ( studijuoti neakivaizdiniu būdu aukštojoje mokykloje ) , this time in “ law with a specialisation in human rights ” ( teisės studijos su žmogaus teisių pakraipa ) . The applicant mentioned that he was a prisoner and thus could not physically attend the place of study .

NORP In a letter of DATE sent to the applicant at FAC , ORG and ORG wrote that information about the study programmes could be found on the website < www.aikos.smm.lt>. This website states that it belongs to ORG and ORG , and is administered by a public entity , ORG in Education ( NORP informacinių technologijų centras ) , which is a public institution founded by ORG and ORG . The website contains information about learning and study possibilities in GPE . The website states the following about the aims of the “ ORG ” system :

“ ORG is an open system for providing information , consultation and guidance , the main aim of which is to provide information about opportunities for learning in GPE .

ORG provides the possibility of searching information about professions , qualifications , studies and study programmes , educational and science institutions and rules of admission ...

ORG allows users to submit a question to a consultant and to receive a reply ...

The information provided in the central part of the ORG website under the sections ‘ I wish to learn’ , ‘ I wish to study’ , ‘ I wish to improve my ORG reflects only the current and most pertinent information relevant to DATE and is aimed at those who wish to enter university , vocational school , or a secondary school , or who wish to improve their qualifications . The site also contains historical data regarding education ...

ORG provides information to CARDINAL groups of users : adults , children ( DATE ) and NORP speakers . The users may use more functions after they have registered on this site .

The ORG website is refreshed DATE , to reflect information about education and science institutions , study and learning programmes and the qualifications a person receives upon graduating from those programmes , ... programmes for improving qualifications ... It also provides information from ORG about job vacancies and unemployment . The latter information on the ORG website is renewed DATE ... ”

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG authorities , noting the reply by ORG and asking to be granted Internet access to a website “ where there was information from the Ministry about studies , as well as to [ the applicant ’s ] email accounts hosted on the Internet sites < www.one.lt > and < www.yahoo.com > ” .

On DATE ORG governor replied that the prison authorities did not consider the ORG ’s reply to be comprehensive . In particular , ORG had not taken into account the applicant ’s particular situation – namely that he was in prison . The prison considered that the ORG should have provided a comprehensive reply in writing . According to the prison governor , “ given that the ORG ’s reply did not satisfy [ the applicant ] , the latter should write to ORG again , so that he is provided with a comprehensive reply ” .

The prison governor also informed the applicant that the request to have Internet access could not be granted because at that time none of the legislation allowed the prisoners to use the Internet or to have a mailbox . For that reason , ORG authorities were unable to grant the applicant ’s request .

The applicant then lodged a complaint with ORG ( GPE departamentas ) , arguing that none of the laws prohibited him from obtaining information from a ORG institution electronically . The applicant referred to the ORG ’s reply and asked to be granted Internet access .

NORP On DATE ORG responded that the legal instruments regulating the execution of sentences did not permit prisoners to use the Internet . It was suggested that the applicant again ask the Ministry to provide the information he sought .

On DATE the applicant started court proceedings , referring to his correspondence with the Ministry and challenging ORG decision not to grant him access to Internet .

In their written response to the court , ORG authorities noted that , although prisoners had a right to address requests and complaints to the ORG authorities under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this meant correspondence by regular post and not via electronic communication . Furthermore , the use of mobile phones in prisons was prohibited so that prisoners could not continue their criminal activity whilst serving a sentence . According to ORG authorities , a number of fraudsters had already cheated people of large sums of money with the help of mobile phones . If the prisoners had the right to use Internet , they could pursue criminal activities and could also coordinate the activities of criminal organisations . Lastly , given that postal correspondence between prisoners was not permitted , providing prisoners with access to the Internet would make that prohibition pointless . The same was true regarding the prohibition in the CARDINALst Annex of the LAW of the ORG possession of topographic maps ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG also asked the court to dismiss the applicant ’s complaint , arguing that although LAW permitted prisoners to use computers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this did not encompass the right to Internet use . There was no right under NORP law for a prisoner to be provided with Internet access .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . Having reviewed the legal provisions regulating prisoners’ conditions of detention , the court pointed out that the prisoners could communicate with ORG institutions by postal correspondence and that their letters had to be sent via the prison authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Giving Internet access to prisoners would not be compatible with those legal norms . However , as the Internet was not an object , it was not possible to list Internet among the “ objects ” which the prisoners were not allowed to have in prison . At the same time , from the existing ban on telephone and radio communication devices in prison it was obvious that this ban included the Internet . Such prohibition was aimed at preventing crimes being committed in prison . The court also observed that the requirements were set by order of the prison authorities and were therefore mandatory for the applicant , as he was under an obligation to obey prison orders .

The applicant appealed , disputing the lower court ’s interpretation of domestic law . He also argued that the lower court had ignored the fact that the core of his complaint was the restriction of his right to education and the right to obtain information . The applicant relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

ORG authorities replied , indicating that there was “ a secondary school ( vidurinė mokykla ) in the prison where students could access all the literature necessary for their studies . The secondary school graduation exams showed good results ” . Furthermore , the prisoners could pursue computer literacy studies organised by the ORG ( Elektrėnų profesinio rengimo centras ) , and that institution had not asked for Internet access . The prison thus considered that Internet access , or the lack thereof , had no impact on the quality of studies .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court noted that , for its users , the Internet provided very wide opportunities to use email , to obtain information , to download files , and to sell or buy things . The Internet could be used for more than merely educational purposes . However , the right to use the Internet was not absolute and this right could be restricted to certain social groups . This stemmed from LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There was no legal provision in GPE permitting prisoners to use the Internet . Even so , the ORG right to have computers could not be interpreted so widely as to encompass the right to have Internet access . ORG lastly noted that if prisoners had access to the Internet , the prison authorities would be hampered in their fight against crime by being unable to fully monitor the ORG activities .

On DATE the Elektrėnai Vocational Educational Centre ( Elektrėnų profesinio mokymo centras ) awarded the applicant a diploma in computer skills .

According to the Government , in DATE the applicant had attended LANGUAGE language courses and computer literacy courses organised by a secondary school in GPE region .

In DATE the applicant started court proceedings , arguing that in DATE he had been held in FAC for DATE in degrading conditions . Among other things , he also argued that FAC authorities had seized the personal computer which the applicant had brought with him into prison .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim by the applicant as unfounded .

NORP In a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG concluded that the computer had been unlawfully seized by FAC authorities . However , the court found that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention had been satisfactory overall , except for a few minor details , and that the gravity of those violations was not such as would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment .

In DATE ORG authorities granted the applicant ’s request for an extended visit by his parents . However , the applicant later committed a disciplinary offence , and for that reason the extended visit was denied .

On DATE ORG upheld the refusal of the extended visit as legitimate .

By a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and at the time the applications were lodged were detained in ORG , PERSON .

The first applicant is serving a sentence of DATE imprisonment in ORG . The sentence was imposed on him by ORG on DATE for drugrelated offences . ORG also ordered the applicant to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) as well as ORG DATE in fees payable to the court experts , which were to be converted into a further CARDINAL months’ imprisonment if not paid . Pending proceedings before ORG , the first applicant − having served his sentence − was released from detention in DATE .

The applicant alleged that he had been detained in ORG , a highsecurity division , from DATE until DATE . He claimed that during this period he had been unable to use any electronic equipment , to work , study or go to church , and that he had been subjected to psychological torture and inhuman and degrading treatment . He argued that he was neither aggressive nor an addict and there was no reason why he should have been placed in Division DATE , which was intended to house very dangerous , problematic , aggressive and addicted prisoners . The Government submitted that the first applicant had been placed in Division CARDINAL following an order from the head of security at the prison , and that , according to documents submitted to the ORG , on DATE the applicant had been given the option to move to a less secure ORG , but had refused . In Division CARDINAL he had had access to the main library of the prison . LANGUAGE lessons and mass were also provided in the ORG . He could make phone calls and had had access to the communal TV and DVD player , and TV sets were also allowed in the cells . During that time he had also carried out paid work assembling plastic toys .

NORP Since DATE the first applicant has been detained in Division CARDINAL , specifically in cell CARDINAL since DATE .

He complained that the cell windows were very small and that there was inadequate ventilation and no natural light . The water supply was inadequate and he had to use a bucket to flush the toilet .

He claimed to be suffering from symptoms that were the aftereffects of physical and psychological stress . In this regard , the first applicant stated that he had been examined by the prison psychologist , who had prescribed medicine to help him sleep in addition to painkillers . According to the applicant the psychologist had also suggested that he be referred to the psychiatric hospital , but no such transfer had taken place .

The Government submitted that the cells in which the first applicant had been housed in both ORG and CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY . They noted that the first applicant had been asked ( on an unspecified date ) whether he wanted to be transferred from ORG but he had replied in the negative . He had also been asked , following communication of the complaint to the respondent Government , whether he had a problem with the window in his cell and the reply had been in the negative . They submitted that the applicant had chosen to paint over the glass shade covering the ceiling light in his cell , and when asked about this , he had stated that he had no need for a ceiling light and for that reason had painted over it . According to the ORG , the first applicant had a secondary light that he used and he had stated that it provided plenty of light for him . Moreover , the cell had CARDINAL vents on opposite sides and the cell door had an aperture which was always left open for ventilation purposes . Relying on an indistinct photo submitted to ORG , the Government submitted that the applicant had covered the ventilation grilles on the wall with masking tape , thereby restricting the ventilation .

The Government submitted that the cell was equipped with a washbasin with running water and an additional wall - mounted tap . According to the Government , when the applicant was asked whether he had an issue with the provision of water , he stated that he no longer had any issues . As far as the use of the toilet was concerned , the Government admitted that ORG did not have a combined flushing and WC system and that the inmates had to flush the toilets manually using buckets that were provided in all cells and could be filled from the wall - mounted taps .

The Government submitted that the prison psychologist was not in a position to prescribe medicine or to refer inmates to the psychiatric hospital . They stated that when the first applicant was interviewed by the prison psychologist on DATE , he had stated that he was sleeping TIME but that he did not want to take medication . According to the medical records kept by the prison medical unit , none of the doctors who had examined the applicant had found it necessary to refer him to a psychiatrist . The in - house doctor at the prison confirmed that the first applicant was never referred for psychiatric treatment as he was not mentally unstable and had not expressed a desire to be referred . The doctor also confirmed that he could not see that there had ever been such a referral by any doctor in the past . The applicant had met the doctor on CARDINAL occasions and the latter had treated him for his medical needs but no psychiatric concerns had been observed or reported or expressed . On DATE the applicant had refused all treatment , which is the right of any patient and must be respected . The Government submitted that the doctor had also confirmed that the medical notes showed that , whilst in Division CARDINAL , the first applicant had also been examined by medical doctors and treatment had been provided as needed .

The second applicant is currently serving a term of imprisonment of DATE for drug - related offences in ORG . ORG , which sentenced him on DATE , had also imposed a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which the applicant was to pay within DATE and which would be converted to a further term of DATE imprisonment if not paid . ORG also ordered the second applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of costs arising from the appointment of experts . Likewise , if not paid within DATE , this sum would be converted into a term of imprisonment . The judgment was confirmed on appeal on DATE . The applicant has been held in cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL since DATE .

The applicant claimed that he was forced to buy bottled drinking water , as the available water was undrinkable . Since there is no laundry service in prison , he was dependent on donated clothes − which did not always fit him – in order to have access to clean clothing .

The applicant alleged that his cell was old and that he was living in squalor . The cell walls contained asbestos and the old paint was peeling off the walls and the ceiling . Moreover , according to the applicant , the building was infested by rats and cockroaches .

During DATE , the cell was too hot and since the cell window was too small , the ventilation was inadequate . On the other hand , during DATE the cell was freezing cold . No heating was provided in the cells and the blankets were not adequate . The applicant stated that he had to wear his jacket in order to be able to sleep in DATE .

NORP The applicant , a non - smoker , complained that he was not separated from inmates who smoke . He was thus a victim of passive smoking TIME the day .

According to the applicant he was frequently not given any breakfast and PERCENT of the food served in prison consisted of bread and pasta . He also stated that , although tobacco was easily accessible , fresh fruit was mostly restricted . Occasionally , apples that were past their sell - by date and could not be sold in local supermarkets were brought to the inmates .

The Government submitted that , when specifically asked by the prison authorities whether he had ever lodged a request to be transferred to a newer part of the prison , the second applicant replied that he had never made such a request and that he did not want to be transferred .

They further submitted that the tap water in the cell was fit for human consumption . The water in all parts of the prison facility had been certified by ORG as being potable ( certification submitted to ORG is dated DATE ) . The water is tested and certified DATE . Division CARDINAL had access to water directly from the mains , that is to say , drinking water . In addition to the availability of the running tap water supply , the inmates had the right to obtain bottled water from the ORG tuck - shop .

In DATE the second applicant received ORG CARDINAL DATE in so - called “ Work & Pay ” remuneration and gratuity money , as well as ORG MONEY every DATE for work he carried out assembling plastic dolls . They stated that at the tuck - shop a CARDINAL - pack of water cost ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and an individual bottle ORG .

The Government submitted that inmates were provided with washing powder − at no cost – so that they could wash their clothes . All cells were equipped with a wall - mounted tap and a sink with running water in which to wash their clothes . It was the duty of the inmates to wash their clothing and to be clean at all times .

The Government submitted that the walls did not contain asbestos but were built from NORP limestone . They stated that the applicant had never painted his cell , nor had he ever requested any materials to do so , even though such material was free of charge . The Government claimed that the applicant had stated that he would never paint his cell himself because he felt that this was the responsibility of the prison officials .

The Government denied that the building was infested by rats and cockroaches , pointing out that pest control treatment had been carried out CARDINAL times at the prison since DATE ( certificates confirming the application of pest control in specific areas of the prison , including ORG , were submitted to the ORG ) .

The Government also submitted that , apart from the window , there were also CARDINAL vents in the cell , along with an aperture in the cell door which was always left open . However , the applicant had fixed a sheet over the window and had covered CARDINAL of the ventilation grilles on the wall with a piece of paper , thereby restricting the amount of ventilation .

The Government submitted that the second applicant had asked for an extra blanket in DATE ( while in ORG ) but had then rejected the extra blanket he was given , saying that it was too old . Since the applicant had been in ORG , he had not asked for any additional blankets .

As to the second applicant ’s claim concerning passive smoking , the Government submitted that the second applicant resided in a single cell and had access to fresh air in the adjoining yard for DATE . The learning zones were all smoke - free .

The Government contested the applicant ’s allegation concerning breakfast and the quality of food , stating that breakfast was served as follows : on DATE all inmates were served with a ham or cheese sandwich and at DATE and on public holidays sandwiches were served with boiled eggs . The inmates had access to unlimited tea and coffee . The Government submitted to ORG the CARDINAL DATE menus constituting the lunch and dinner choices over DATE the menus showed a variety of meat and fish dishes , as well as pasta dishes and pies . Apart from the menu of DATE , inmates could opt for tuna salad , eggs and chips with corned beef , eggs and chips with ham or cheese , omelette with ham or cheese and soup , or both . According to the Government , in cases where an inmate had been ordered to go on a diet by the doctor , pasta with ricotta or steamed fish would be provided at lunchtime and steamed chicken for dinner . Should a special diet be prescribed by the medical doctor , the food thereby indicated would be provided by the prison authorities . According to the Government , fresh fruit was delivered to the prison DATE boxes of bananas and CARDINAL boxes of oranges were delivered to the prison and distributed to the inmates DATE .

On DATE the second applicant instituted proceedings complaining about his conditions of detention . In particular he noted that , cumulatively , he had been held in the correctional facility since CARDINAL DATE and , since that date , had been forced to live in a cell subject to the following hardships : without adequate drinking water ; without clothing to keep him warm throughout DATE ; being dependent on charitable institutions to obtain clothing ; the cell contained a significant quantity of asbestos that was causing him physical harm ; the cell was infested with rats and cockroaches ; ORG lacked adequate sanitary facilities ; the cell only had CARDINAL small window which could not be opened as it was too high up ; during DATE he was only given CARDINAL thin blanket although the facility was cold and it was therefore difficult to sleep ; all detainees were allowed to smoke wherever and whenever they wanted and , as a consequence , inmates who , like the applicant , are non - smokers , were being subjected to passive smoking ; these conditions amounted to a breach of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE .

On DATE the second applicant gave oral testimony and submitted that in prison he generally felt hot and had been advised by a prison guard to buy a fan ; after asking for water he had been advised to either buy it or drink the water supplied by the correctional facility . Nothing further was submitted in his oral testimony .

The respondent denied the above allegations . According to the medical doctor there were no mental or physical issues , nor had the applicant ever sought medical assistance . As regards the structural complaints submitted by the second applicant , the maintenance official submitted the following evidence in summarised form :

The ORG in which the complainant was held consists of CARDINAL cells , CARDINAL of which is not currently in use ; complainant is housed in a cell on his own ; his particular cell is a normal one with a standard window and adequate light – being built the way it is for security reasons – and the lighting in the cell is appropriate ; when the cells are open , inmates may freely walk in and out of them whenever they want , except when “ under report ” ( that is to say confined to quarters ) ; the complainant had access to open spaces from TIME to TIME just like all other inmates and when so authorised ; ORG conducts a yearly analysis of the water supply to check that it is fit for human consumption , and the most recent report ( that of DATE ) , conducted by a private laboratory , concluded that the water supply is good for drinking and meets the standard for human consumption ; the ORG provides potable water from the mains for the inmates and that water is supplied free of charge ; inmates are allowed to buy bottled water ; when inmates enter the ORG they are given blankets , sheets , pillows and a mattress ; upon request , they are also given extra blankets , however , the complainant had never registered any such request ; as regards any infestation of rats and cockroaches , the maintenance official presented a report submitted by a private company on these issues ( such inspection is carried out DATE ) stating that CARDINAL rodent control visits were carried out in DATE and the last visit showed that “ everything was under control ” . As regards smoking : inmates are allowed to smoke in cells ; if some inmates within a particular cell are nonsmokers , then the other inmates are not allowed to smoke in that particular cell ; the complainant does not smoke , although the prison doctor affirms that he stated upon admission into ORG that he was a smoker .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence dismissed the second applicant ’s complaint . It considered that he had failed to submit the evidence that was deemed legally necessary to prove his case − the complainant had merely alleged the existence of the various shortcomings referred to above , but had failed to submit the relevant evidence to substantiate his allegations . By contrast , the evidence submitted in the proceedings by the doctor and the maintenance official satisfactorily showed that the allegations were unfounded .

On the specific issues raised , the court found as follows :

Water supply : ORG submitted adequate proof that the water supply used in ORG was potable , fit for human consumption and conformed to LAW intended for LAW , DATE , after being microbiologically analysed to this end . However , reference is made to ORG ( PHL ) ORG , which stated that the “ chloride content exceeds the indicator parameter value in LN CARDINAL of DATE ” . Even given the above breach of the statutory limit , the complainant ’s allegation is not substantiated as he could make use of viable alternatives to overcome the issue , either consuming warm potable water or buying bottled water from the gratuity money given to him by the facility ’s authorities ;

Blankets and clothing : it sufficiently results that , upon entering ORG , inmates are issued with a residential kit consisting of blankets , sheets , pillows and a mattress ; if required , inmates may ask their ORG officer for more blankets . As regards clothing , the ORG is supported by charities which are allowed to distribute suitable clothing as required . It is apparent that the complainant never submitted a complaint on these issues .

Asbestos : The complaint submitted by the complainant alleging that there is asbestos in his cell is not borne out by fact ; There is therefore no such danger to the complainant ’s health and in fact , no such complaint has been submitted by the complainant at any time during his stay in the facility since DATE .

Rodents and cockroaches : pest control by a private company that specialises in this particular activity is constantly and periodically ( DATE ) undertaken by the ORG ’s authorities . According to the treatment report released by the private company involved ( dated DATE ) the situation was certified as being under control .

Smoking : the complainant is housed in a cell on his own . However , inmates are allowed to smoke in particular areas and at particular times . In the particular division where the complainant is housed , there is no area where smoking is prohibited , and the complainant is therefore being subjected to passive smoking . Ideally , non - smokers should be segregated from smokers in order to avoid unnecessary hardship but , despite this resulting in an unsavoury situation , it is understood that because of the particular circumstances such obvious segregation might not be practically possible . As a result it can not be held that this situation reaches the level of severity and intensity required by LAW of the local LAW . Furthermore , upon examining the medical records presented in the case file of the proceedings , no medical or physical deterioration was recorded in the health of the complainant as a result of the passive smoking analysed herein

Cell window and consequent availability of adequate light : the cell at issue is a normal ORG cell furnished with a standard window and occupied only by the complainant . The window provides enough light in the cell to serve its purpose . The complainant is allowed to leave his cell at the appointed times , and on the basis of the medical reports that were accumulated throughout DATE of confinement , no medical conditions have been reported as arising as a result thereof .

No appeal appears to have been lodged against this judgment .

The third applicant is currently detained in FAC . By a judgment of ORG of DATE he was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of ORG CARDINAL , which was to be converted into a term of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment if not paid , along with ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of expert fees . The applicant has been detained in ORG since DATE ; for the first DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL , which was a little worse than cell CARDINAL in which he has been housed ever since .

He stated that his cell window was positioned at a height of QUANTITY ; he therefore had to climb onto something to open it . It had CARDINAL metal bars which hampered the entry of natural light .

According to the third applicant , the temperature in his cell may be CARDINAL oC during DATE , and yet he is not allowed to have a heater in his cell . In DATE , the applicant allegedly suffers from arthritis , which causes him unbearable pain . However , he is not able to use LOC ( which is the only medicine provided by the prison authorities ) because he suffers from Hepatitis C.

The applicant alleged that during DATE the cells were infested with cockroaches . Furthermore , his cell became very hot and there was inadequate ventilation . However , prison regulations restricted the number of fans per cell to CARDINAL . Although the applicant had CARDINAL fans in his cell , he stated that in DATE they merely circulated the hot air and the steel door of the cell prevented any fresh air circulation . By contrast , he noted that the offices of the prison personnel ( who were exposed to the same temperatures ) were equipped with air conditioning and heating facilities .

The applicant claimed that in DATE the hot water supply was not sufficient to cater for the approximately CARDINAL inmates in his ORG . Furthermore , the water was not drinkable and he therefore had to purchase bottled water , which was only possible when he had money . He claimed that when he did not have any money , he was obliged to drink the undrinkable water , which caused him skin blemishes . He stated that drinking water was only distributed to the prison personnel , but did not reach the detainees .

The applicant also claimed that inmates did not have access to a laundry and foreign inmates were not given detergents with which to wash their clothes and clean their cells and toilets .

According to the applicant , the building was DATE and its condition was inadequate . Dust fell from the applicant ’s cell ’s ceiling and walls , which he then breathed in .

The applicant also stated that since the prison did not provide him with tablets for his migraine , he had been obliged to buy such tablets for DATE .

According to the ORG , the applicant has resided in cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL since DATE , and when asked by the prison authorities if he would like to be transferred to another part of the prison , he declined .

In reply to the second and third applicants’ claims , the Government submitted that the window in the cell could be opened using a tool provided by the authorities or by standing on the bed or on a chair or stool . Moreover , the metal bars at the window were a security feature and did not prevent natural light from entering the cell .

As to the claim concerning heaters , the Government referred to their submissions below ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . They further noted DATE due to the climate in the NORP islands – such requests were not frequent ; however , they submitted that due consideration would be given to the matter if a medical reason was found to be at the root of such request .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been diagnosed with right dupuytrens contracture , which is a hand deformity affecting the fingers , so that they can not be straightened completely . The applicant underwent surgery on the CARDINAL DATE which did not result in any complications . The applicant was discharged and prescribed paracetamol and diclofenac . Although the applicant alleged that he suffered from arthritis , he did not visit the medical unit complaining of pain in the joints .

The Government also referred to the submissions made in DATE above ) . They noted that the window in cell ORG could be opened and closed by the occupant . There were also CARDINAL vents as well as the aperture in the cell door which was always left open . According to the Government the third applicant had covered one of the wall vents with a sheet of paper , thereby restricting the amount of ventilation , and the aperture in the cell door had been covered with a piece of cardboard from inside the cell . Furthermore , the Government submitted that it was permissible for inmates to have CARDINAL fan in their cell . In fact , most of the inmates had CARDINAL fans , as did the third applicant .

As to the quality and provision of water , the Government referred to their submissions in paragraph CARDINAL below . They noted that in DATE , the [ third ] applicant received ORG CARDINAL DATE in “ Work & Pay ” remuneration and gratuity money , as well as ORG CARDINAL DATE for work he carried out assembling plastic dolls , thereby enabling him to buy bottled water at tuck - shop prices .

According to the Government there are no medical records referring to skin blemishes at ORG . They acknowledged that ORG was located within the older part of the facility however they stated that all cells were equipped with the necessary facilities and paint was provided on request so that the inmates could keep their cells in good condition . Relying on photos submitted , the ORG considered that the ceiling and walls appeared to be in good condition and there was no flaking .

Lastly , the Government acknowledged that the applicant had had to buy migraine tablets , namely PERSON mg . Purchasing these tablets was standard policy for all inmates who suffer from migraine since inmates are eligible for medicine which is supplied by the Government to all citizens for free , but PERSON is not on the free medication list . Nevertheless , as can be seen from documentation submitted to the ORG , the Secretary of ORG ( ORG ) informed the applicant that ORG had decided to grant him the full cost of treatment upon presentation of the original receipts . They noted that the third applicant had been referred to the ORG hospital in DATE for a common migraine and medication was prescribed as stated above . On DATE he was admitted to the Day care unit at the ORG hospital , where he underwent surgery , and he was discharged DATE , with a follow - up appointment being scheduled for DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . She was the mother of PERSON , born in DATE , and the widow of PERSON , born in DATE .

On DATE at TIME an operational investigative group composed of officers of ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) , ORG of the ORG ( “ ROVD ” ) , ORG of ORG of the ORG and ORG for LOC ( “ ORG ” ) , were driving several vehicles along FAC , returning from GPE to the village of GPE . CARDINAL of the vehicles of the convoy was blown up and thrown down a steep slope by the explosion into the nearby River FAC . Several officers in the vehicle were wounded and CARDINAL were killed instantly .

After the explosion , the police officers called for reinforcements . In TIME an armoured unit , a reconnaissance unit of the LOC military command and a special operations unit of the ORG arrived at the scene . After the reinforcements arrived , unidentified forces started firing mortars at the forested slopes . Shells were exploding on the roadside QUANTITY from the explosion scene .

Meanwhile , the applicant ’s daughter was driving her ORG truck from GPE to GPE . As she passed the scene of the explosion , mortar shells started exploding on the roadside . She received a wound to the head and died instantly . CARDINAL ORG officers were also wounded and hospitalised .

On DATE the civil registration office of LOC issued a death certificate ( no . CARDINAL ) , certifying that PERSON , aged DATE , had died on DATE in GPE in LOC , from a shell wound to the head .

Around the time the applicant ’s daughter died , the applicant ’s DATE husband was ill . Concerned for her husband ’s health , the applicant hesitated about telling him about their daughter ’s death .

The applicant ’s husband found out about their daughter ’s death on DATE . He could not cope with her loss and died DATE , on DATE .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant ’s daughter under LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW Criminal Code ( negligent homicide ) . An on - site inspection and an inspection of the applicant ’s daughter ’s body were carried out .

On DATE the chief assistant of ORG sent an order to LOC of the ORG ( “ NORP ” ) , LOC ROVD and the ORG requesting them to carry out without delay the necessary operational - search measures for establishing who had been involved in the death of the applicant ’s daughter .

On DATE CARDINAL officers of the Vedenskiy ROVD were questioned about the circumstances of the events of DATE .

On DATE a post - mortem examination of the applicant ’s daughter ’s body was completed . It was established that she had died from a vast penetrating head wound resulting in brain damage .

On DATE the Vedenskiy District ORG replied to the request of DATE , stating that it had appeared impossible to identify the individuals involved in the death of the applicant ’s daughter .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings . She was questioned on DATE .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended . The heads of the LOC VOVD , ORG and ORG were instructed to carry out the necessary operational - search activities with a view to identifying the possible suspects . The applicant was not informed of this decision .

For DATE , the applicant attempted , in vain , to find out how the investigation was progressing , and made various enquiries to the competent domestic authorities .

On DATE , with the help of a lawyer provided to her by ORG , the applicant obtained a reply from ORG and copies of the decisions of DATE ( instituting criminal case no . DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( acknowledging her victim status in the proceedings and setting out her procedural rights ) , and DATE ( suspending the preliminary investigation for failure to identify those responsible for the events in question ) .

On DATE the proceedings were resumed . The decision of CARDINAL DATE was found to be unlawful and the investigation incomplete and superficial . A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant .

On DATE ORG requested the head of central archives at ORG to provide copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant ’s Office for DATE .

On DATE the investigator of ORG questioned PERSON , head of the artillery armament service of military unit no . ORG based in GPE , who stated as follows :

“ The following procedure is in place for deploying mortar batteries . Once the command has been received , the mortar battery ’s officer - on - duty is given an order which includes [ such information as ] : the number of shells , target coordinates , the time of firing , and the time of ceasefire . The battery ’s officer - on - duty transmits the command to the officer - on - duty , who alerts the crew - on - duty and issues an order in accordance with the command received . As soon as the firing has been ceased , the battery ’s officer - on - duty reports to the initiator of the firing , then the latter reports to ORG ( “ UGA ” ) ... Within TIME the battery commander files a report in order to write off the ammunitions used , indicating the initiator of the firing , the time , target coordinates , and the number of shells used . The report is then approved by the military unit commander ... and agreed with the local department of the ORG . I then receive the report , and prepare an ammunitions expenditure account . ORG , the account and the report are attached to a secret file that I keep . The file is kept for DATE and is then destroyed ... I do n’t know if the military units of ORG previously deployed on the territory of GPE and FAC had the same procedures in place . ”

On DATE ORG sent requests to LOC ROVD to establish the whereabouts of officers NORP PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who had served there on a contract basis in DATE . On DATE ORG requested LOC to question PERSON . , who had served at LOC in DATE as an expert criminologist .

On DATE ORG requested the head of LOC ROVD to guarantee the attendance of its officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON Kh . , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON . , for questioning as witnesses to the events of DATE .

On DATE the investigator of ORG questioned police officer PERSON Kh . , who stated that on DATE he had been wounded in the explosion and taken to hospital in PERSON and could not therefore provide any information about the subsequent mortar attack .

On DATE the investigator questioned police officer A. T. , who claimed to have left the scene of the explosion to provide help to the wounded and could not therefore clarify the circumstances of the mortar attack .

On DATE ORG sought the assistance of the ORG for GPE in establishing the whereabouts of PERSON and Ensign PERSON . , wounded during the mortar attack on DATE , in order to question them as victims of the attack . On DATE ORG requested ORG of GPE to provide them with personal data and contact information for CARDINAL former officers of ORG , PERSON and PERSON . , in order to guarantee their attendance for questioning as witnesses to the events of DATE .

On DATE the investigator of the investigations department of the LOC VOVD questioned witness ORG . PERSON , who stated that on DATE the operational investigative group had arrived in GPE to investigate an attack by members of an illegal armed group on civilians ( murder and arson ) . After the investigative group had left , he , NORP NORP and PERSON went to the cemetery to bury the victims . From the cemetery they heard an explosion and then saw that a district police vehicle had been blown up . As they approached , they saw that several police officers had been wounded and killed . They started helping by providing first aid and evacuating the wounded . On their way from the gorge to the road leading to ORG , he heard detonations . A ORG truck driving on its way to PERSON passed them by . He knew that the driver of the truck was a woman from GPE . Later he knew from the officers who had remained at the scene of the explosion that the detonations he had heard had been mortars . He did not know whether the scene of the explosion had been subjected to shelling by members of an illegal armed group or the federal forces .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to identify those responsible for committing the crime . On DATE the investigation was subsequently resumed , but suspended again on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the ORG for GPE informed ORG that in DATE PERSON ORG and Ensign PERSON . had served in the ORG as undercover agents , which was why their whereabouts could not be revealed .

On DATE witness PERSON was questioned . His statements were consistent with the statement by ORG . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG approached the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL for assistance in obtaining information from the ORG as to whether the mortar batteries used on DATE had belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in LOC , with an indication of the time of firing , target coordinates and the number of shots .

On DATE the central archives of ORG provided a document stating as follows :

“ [ On ] DATE [ at ] CARDINAL on the ROVD officers’ return trip in the UAZ-CARDINAL truck from the village of GPE a landmine exploded on the QUANTITY slope near the road , QUANTITY south - east of the village of FAC . Losses : “ CARDINAL ” DATE , “ CARDINAL ” DATE . ”

On DATE witness PERSON , a former officer of LOC , was questioned . He stated as follows :

“ From DATE to CARDINAL DATE I served under contract as chief of police at LOC . [ I ] participated in counterterrorism operations in accordance with the assignments of [ the ROVD ] .

Indeed , on DATE at TIME ROVD received information that a group of [ approximately ] CARDINAL rebel fighters had entered the village of GPE and murdered QUANTITY women , ... set QUANTITY houses on fire and committed other crimes .

At TIME as part of a militarised convoy of the operational investigative group , I went to the village to carry out urgent investigative measures . The convoy consisted of CARDINAL vehicles . After completing the investigative measures , as the convoy was returning back to GPE near the gorge QUANTITY from GPE , a UAZ vehicle was blown up by an explosive device hidden by the road and fell down the abyss from a height of QUANTITY ...

The incident was reported to the ROVD and Military Commandant ’s Office , and a call for reinforcements was made .

The officers of the operational investigative group participated in the evacuation of those killed and wounded [ by the explosion ] .

After the reconnaissance unit arrived , the road was blocked by an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) . At the same time , at CARDINAL TIME mortar shelling of the nearby area began . I do n’t know who opened fire . The explosions hit the forested area on the mountain slopes ; there were CARDINAL explosions altogether . Judging by the sound characteristic of a flying shell , I concluded that the firing was from mortars . I do n’t know which direction the firing came from , [ since ] it is impossible to establish the direction of mortar fire . It is difficult to say whether the shelling was carried out by officers of the federal forces or members of the illegal armed group . After the road was blocked by the ORG , a civilian ORG truck stopped not far from the ORG . A woman was at the wheel . During the shelling she remained in the truck . The shelling lasted TIME . TIME one of the shells exploded between the ORG and the ORG truck . After the shelling stopped it was discovered that the woman driver of the ORG truck had received a shell wound to the head and died on the spot . CARDINAL ORG officers were also wounded ; I do n’t know their names or the nature of their injuries ... ”

On DATE and DATE respectively witnesses A. An . , former chief assistant to the LOC prosecutor , and ORG , a former officer of LOC , were questioned .

“ Since DATE I had served at the LOC ROVD on a contract basis . ...

On DATE information was received that during the night a group of rebel fighters ( CARDINAL individuals ) had entered the village of GPE and killed QUANTITY women , burned down several houses and all the motor vehicles ... At CARDINAL the operational investigative group comprising CARDINAL officers of the police , prosecutor ’s office and ORG [ in CARDINAL vehicles ] headed to GPE .

At CARDINAL the operational investigative group arrived in GPE . Having split up into several groups , [ we ] inspected the scene of the incident and gathered the required material .

At CARDINAL we decided to head in the direction of ORG . The head of the LOC ROVD decided to proceed in groups , with CARDINAL minute intervals , since it was suspected that the rebel fighters might be nearby and could attack the convoy ...

Having driven QUANTITY from GPE , an unarmoured UAZ truck carrying the head of the ROVD and CARDINAL other individuals was blown up behind us . We stopped , as I understood that CARDINAL of our vehicles had been blown up . Everybody left the truck and dispersed onto the road ... At that moment we were subjected to shelling from automatic firearms coming from the forested area on the other side of the abyss . The abyss was QUANTITY wide . I think that CARDINAL people were firing at us . ORG officers called for reinforcements and artillery support .

Several of our officers started going down the abyss [ to provide help to those who were in the ORG vehicle ] . Me and other officers were covering them , firing at the forested area with automatic firearms . The firefight lasted for TIME and ended after ORG officers launched CARDINAL grenades in the direction of the forested area with an RPG-CARDINAL handheld grenade launcher .

The officers of the prosecutor ’s office inspected the scene of the attack ; the police officers were helping to take the wounded onto the road . We put the wounded into a GAZEL van , and took them to ORG . From the direction of ORG a ORG truck was driving towards us ... At that moment a mortar attack began . CARDINAL shells hit the forested area and CARDINAL landed on the road where we were . We immediately hid from the shells under a LOC truck . The interval between strikes was TIME . The ORG truck was already QUANTITY from us , when a shell exploded next to it . The truck stopped . At that moment the ORG officers got in touch with the military and asked them to cease fire . We got out from under the [ ORG ] truck and saw that the woman driver of ORG truck was dead ... CARDINAL of our officers were also wounded ; I do n’t remember who exactly .

The firing was from mortars , as a characteristic roar was clearly heard before each explosion . I can not say where the firing was conducted from , since we were in a gorge , and the echo could be heard from everywhere ... ”

“ From DATE to DATE I served under contract at LOC On DATE [ as part of the operational investigative group ] I went to the village of GPE , where during TIME DATE CARDINAL unidentified [ members of an illegal armed group ] had killed several women and burned down several houses and cars . On the return trip from the scene of the incident , [ on the road running through forested mountain slopes ] between the villages of GPE and Dyshne - Vedeno , a landmine exploded , as a result of which a UAZ truck carrying officers of the LOC ROVD was thrown down the abyss . Thereupon , [ the convoy ] was subjected to shelling . The shelling was carried out with automatic firearms coming from the forested mountain area by members of the illegal armed group . Later , there was an artillery attack . [ This was clear judging by ] the characteristic sound and the presence of characteristic “ funnels ” on the ground . It is difficult to say which direction the artillery attack was conducted from as the events date back to DATE ... ”

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the acting prosecutor of LOC that pursuant to their request of CARDINAL DATE , an enquiry had been sent to the commander of the ORG and upon receipt of the reply the requested information would be sent separately .

On DATE witness PERSON , a former officer of LOC ROVD , was questioned . With regard to the circumstances of the mortar fire , he claimed to have been unable to say whether the firing was from mortars or artillery equipment , or to say who had conducted it . However , he stated that he had seen shell bursts and estimated that there had been CARDINAL of them . It was difficult in the circumstances to determine which direction the firing was conducted from .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE suspending the investigation of the case before the ORG ( ORG межрайонный следственный отдел следственного управления PERSON комитета при прокуратуре Российской Федерации по Чеченской Республике ) .

On DATE its head found that there were no grounds for quashing the decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer challenged the above decision before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG held that the decision of DATE had been unlawful , unjustified and premature , and instructed ORG to resume the investigation . In particular , the court pointed out the need to identify the person who had given the order to use heavy weapons without precisely calculating the target area or ensuring that the relevant area had been cordoned off beforehand . Furthermore , it considered it necessary to obtain relevant information from the central archives of ORG , ORG and the ORG with respect to the mortar fire executed on DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s lawyer enquired with the head of ORG whether the judgment of DATE had been complied with . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively he was informed that the investigation of the criminal case had never been resumed .

The applicant challenged the idleness of the Shalinskiy Inter - District Investigation Department before ORG , which on DATE found its inactivity unlawful .

DATE . On DATE the investigation of the case was transferred from ORG to ORG .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . The following instructions were given to the investigator of the ORG :

“ - to join to the material of criminal case no . DATE as evidence copies of all necessary documents from the criminal case opened into the causing of bodily harm to officers of LOC and ORG as a result of the explosion of a UAZ-CARDINAL vehicle by an unidentified explosive device on DATE ;

- to question as witnesses all the officers of the LOC ROVD and ORG driving in the convoy ... at the moment of the mortar attack , including regarding the issue of who in particular had been contacted [ to give the order ] to use mortar fire ;

- to establish the owner of the ORG truck ... ;

- to obtain from the central archives of ORG copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant ’s Office for DATE and join them to the case material ;

- obtain from the headquarters of the ORG information on whether the mortar batteries used on DATE belonged to military units and military divisions deployed in LOC of GPE , with an indication of the time of firing , the target area and the number of shots ;

- to carry out other necessary investigative measures ; and

- to take a lawful and justified decision on the criminal case based on the results of the investigative measures conducted . ”

On DATE the investigator of ORG requested the head of central archives at ORG to provide copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant ’s Office for DATE . On DATE the investigator requested the temporary district police ( ОГ ВОГО и П МВД PERSON по Веденскому району Чеченской PERSON ) to obtain information from the ORG headquarters about the mortar batteries used on DATE by the military units and divisions deployed in LOC , with an indication of the time of firing , the target area and the number of shots .

On DATE the investigator questioned witness PERSON , an officer of LOC , whose statements were similar to the statement by ORG Kh . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE and DATE respectively the investigator questioned the applicant ’s sons , PERSON ( PERSON ) and A .- PERSON ( GPE ) , who stated that their sister had been transporting freight with their family ’s ORG truck , and on DATE had been on her way back from the village of NORP where she had been taking some construction stone .

On DATE the temporary district police replied to the investigator ’s request of CARDINAL DATE , stating that it did not have the information requested and advising the investigator to apply to the Vedenskiy District Military ORG .

On DATE the investigator of ORG granted victim status to the applicant ’s daughter ’s sister - in - law , the owner of the ORG truck .

DATE and DATE the proceedings were suspended and reopened CARDINAL times .

In the meantime , on DATE the head of central archives at ORG replied that the military action logbook of the LOC Military ORG were classified , so in order for the documents to be sent to the investigator the latter had to provide the head of central archives with a classified postal address .

On DATE and DATE the investigator of ORG made further requests to the head of central archives at ORG for copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant ’s Office for DATE , indicating the address where the requested documents could be sent .

Meanwhile , on DATE the investigator questioned witness PERSON , chief detective of the criminal investigation department of ORG of the ORG ( “ OVD ” ) , who stated as follows :

“ We [ undertook steps ] to identify those involved in the blowing up of the [ UAZ vehicle ] and the mortar fire which had caused [ the applicant ’s daughter ’s ] death ... Based on the results of the measures taken , [ we ] identified the individuals who had blown up the ORG vehicle ... , but the involvement of [ those individuals ] in the mortar fire was not proved . In this connection we repeatedly submitted requests to the LOC military commandant in order to establish the involvement of mortar batteries of ORG deployed in LOC of GPE [ in the events of DATE ] ; however , we have never received any reply . ”

On DATE , DATE and DATE the investigator questioned witnesses PERSON . and PERSON , detectives of the criminal investigation department of LOC , who gave statements similar to that given by witness PERSON

On the resumption of the proceedings , on DATE the acting head of ORG instructed the investigator to , inter alia , request from the LOC Military ORG and join to the case file pertinent information on the divisions of ORG deployed in the vicinity of the scene of the events of DATE which were armed with mortars , as well as information on the flying range of CARDINAL PERSON and QUANTITY mortar shells .

On DATE , in compliance with the above instructions , the investigator sent relevant requests to the head of LOC , the LOC military commandant , the head of LOC and the commander of the ORG .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE . It appears that the investigation was suspended and reopened again several times thereafter .

On DATE the head of forensics at ORG for GPE stated that the case material in criminal case no . DATE had revealed significant shortcomings in the way the preliminary investigative measures had been carried out . Instructions for further investigation were given to the investigator . It was requested , in particular , that all the ORG officers who had been involved in the events of DATE be questioned , since it appeared from a number of witness statements that it had been ORG officers who had asked unidentified individuals for mortar fire support , and it had subsequently been at their request that the mortar shelling had been stopped .

On DATE the investigation was suspended yet again . It was later resumed on CARDINAL DATE .


CASE OF STANDARD VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA

No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Erik Møse;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant company , a limited liability company based in GPE , owns and publishes the DATE newspaper ORG and the online news portal derstandard.at .

ORG ( Landeskrankenanstalten - Betriebsgesellschaft – hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) is a public - law institution ( PERSON ) which operates CARDINAL hospitals in GPE previously owned by LOC ) .

The ORG is governed and represented by the board of management ( ORG ) which consists of CARDINAL person and is appointed and supervised by the supervisory board ( GPE ) . The supervisory board consists of CARDINAL members of ORG , CARDINAL person who is appointed by ORG and CARDINAL representatives of the employees of the ORG . The chairperson of the supervisory board is appointed by ORG .

NORP In DATE GPE was the member of the board of management in charge of human resources . PERSON was the chairperson of the supervisory board and leader of the parliamentary group ( PERSON ) of ORG of Carinthia ( ORG in ORG ) in the NORP Regional Parliament ( GPE ) . His brother , GPE , was Deputy Governor of GPE .

Because of financial problems , rehiring ( PERSON ) of highlevel managers and accusations of tortious interference on the part of politicians in the recruitment process , management errors and corruption within the ORG , a public debate arose in DATE . On DATE the medical director of ORG ( ORG ) , who was in charge at that time , criticised ORG in a confidential employees’ meeting of the medical doctors of the hospital . TIME the medical director was dismissed without notice .

On DATE on the internet news portal derstandard.at and on DATE in the DATE newspaper PERSON the following article was published :

“ Spying accusation against ORG board of management

The [ ORG ] board of management ... , [ GPE ] , is under heavy pressure . According to TIME of a meeting disclosed on DATE , she is supposed to have ordered the spying on a confidential employees’ meeting [ GPE ] for doctors of ORG herself . TIME were drafted after the employees’ meeting on DATE in the course of a subsequent meeting in the office of the board of management and they state : ‘ [ GPE ] explains that she has , as a precaution , sent an informant , who wrote up a transcript [ Wortprotokoll].’


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , who was DATE at the time , and his brother were stopped by LOC police officers PERSON . and PERSON . at a petrol station in the village of Bolshesidorovskoye in GPE . The applicant submitted that the events had taken place in the context of tense relations between his family and those police officers .

He described the events as follows . He and his brother were pushing their broken motorcycle to take it to a friend for repairs . They were verbally insulted by PERSON . and PERSON . PERSON . then sat on the motorcycle and asked them to push it . Following their refusal , the brothers were subjected to physical violence . PERSON . seized the applicant by his neck , knocked him down and started strangling him . He hit the applicant ’s head against the ground several times , dragged the applicant to a police car without releasing his grasp around his neck , hit his head against the car , punched him in the face and pushed him into the car . The applicant ’s and his brother ’s requests that their parents be informed or that they be taken home because the applicant felt unwell were disregarded by the police officers . The officers drove to the garage of a local collective farm and then to the GPE district administration , where the applicant ’s father found the applicant and his brother and took them home .

According to an administrative - offence record drawn up by Officer PERSON . , at TIME on DATE the applicant ’s brother was apprehended for driving a motorcycle without a driving licence . The applicant ’s brother noted his disagreement , stating in the record that he had not been driving the motorcycle but had been pushing it .

According to an administrative - offence record drawn up by Officer PERSON . , at TIME on DATE the applicant used obscene language in a public place , namely the petrol station in ORG . Therefore , the applicant ’s father committed an administrative offence by failing to properly bring up the applicant . Relying on the police officer ’s record , ORG at the LOC administration subsequently found the applicant ’s father guilty of that administrative offence . ORG , however , granted the applicant ’s father ’s appeal against that decision , finding that the decision , the administrative - offence record and other material lacked any evidence of the applicant ’s father ’s failure to properly raise the applicant , and that , on the contrary , all his children had been well cared for , had studied hard at school , and the family was well thought of . The applicant was heard by the court and denied having used obscene language . The court quashed the decision and terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant ’s father ( judgment of DATE ) .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a surgeon at ORG , who recorded CARDINAL abrasions on his neck which were QUANTITY long , and a contusion to his right elbow .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to the GPE district prosecutor ’s office that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police officers .

On DATE a forensic medical expert from ORG examined the applicant at the request of an investigator of the prosecutor ’s office . The expert recorded abrasions on the applicant ’s neck which were CARDINAL and QUANTITY long , a bruise on his right elbow measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , and a bruise on his lip . The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted on DATE , by fingernails as regards the abrasions on the neck , and by a hard blunt object as regards the bruises .

On DATE the applicant was examined by doctors at the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Polyclinic . He complained of a headache , dizziness , pain in his throat and pain when swallowing , pain in his neck area , lips , left eyebrow and right elbow . The doctors recorded oedema of both lips with bruises , oedema in the area of the left eyebrow and right elbow , and oedema , abrasions and bruises in the area of the neck . They diagnosed him with multiple contusions of the face , neck , larynx and laryngeal cartilages . Following an X - ray examination he was further diagnosed with a fracture of both branches of the hyoid bone .

In an additional opinion of DATE the forensic medical expert stated that the fracture of the branches of the hyoid bone , the oedema and the abrasions on the neck could have been caused on CARDINAL DATE by pressure from fingers , and had resulted in harm to the applicant ’s health lasting up to DATE , that is , minor harm to his health .

Investigators of the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of the elements of a crime in their actions . The ORG refusals ( dated CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE ) were annulled by their superiors at the prosecutor ’s office , because the pre - investigation inquiry , on which the refusals were based , was considered incomplete .

In the refusal of DATE O. , an investigator , found that the applicant ’s injuries had been the result of the use of physical force by Officers PERSON . and PERSON . in order to apprehend the applicant , who had “ disobeyed their commands and attempted to escape ” . The investigator held that no criminal proceedings should be brought against the police officers for lack of the elements of a crime in their actions under LAW ( minor harm to health ) , intent – which was lacking in their actions – being one of those elements . Nor did the investigator consider that there was sufficient information indicating the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions under LAW ( abuse of authority ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , setting aside the refusal of DATE , a senior prosecutor from the GPE prosecutor ’s office held that , in the course of an additional inquiry , the investigator should establish exactly what each of the police officers had done when restraining the applicant and placing him in their car , in particular if the injury had been inflicted by seizing the applicant by his neck . The prosecutor also held that it was necessary to give a legal assessment of the question whether there had been any need to apprehend the applicant , who was minor , on account of his swearing . The prosecutor noted that the relevant administrative proceedings had been brought against the applicant ’s father , and no statements concerning those events had been taken from the applicant .

In the most recent refusal of CARDINAL DATE the defects identified by the prosecutor were not rectified . O. , the investigator , maintained his findings made in the decision of DATE , stating that the applicant ’s allegations had not been confirmed by the results of the preinvestigation inquiry .

The investigator relied on the police ORG explanations that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s brother had disobeyed their command to stop a motorcycle without a registration plate which he had been driving . The applicant had been sitting on the passenger ’s seat . After the police officers had finally managed to stop the motorcycle at the petrol station , the applicant ’s brother had refused to produce his driving licence . The police officers had been drawing up an administrative - offence record when the applicant had started walking away , swearing at them . They had “ restrained him in order to prevent his escape ” .

NORP The investigator referred to explanations by PERSON . that he had seen the police stopping the motorcycle at the petrol station , that he had been invited to act as an attesting witness and sign a record of the motorcycle ’s seizure which the police had drawn up on the spot , and that the applicant ’s brother had refused to sign the record and receive a copy of it .

NORP The investigator ’s decision also referred to statements by other third parties , in particular PERSON , who worked at the petrol station and stated that he had seen the applicant falling onto the tarmac himself , resisting the police officers taking him to their car and trying to escape . PERSON stated that the police officers had not beaten up or strangled the applicant , but had “ restrained him ” . The applicant ’s mother ’s complaint that PERSON had given false statements was dismissed by an investigator of the LOC prosecutor ’s office on the grounds that false explanations given in the framework of a pre - investigation inquiry , as opposed to false statements given in the course of a criminal investigation , were not punishable as a criminal offence ( decision of DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged an application ( жалоба ) with the Krasnogvardeyskiy ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . She complained that on DATE the LOC prosecutor ’s office had refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officers PERSON . and PERSON . Its decision had been unfounded and on DATE it had been set aside by ORG . Since then she had not been informed of any new decision . She argued that the police ORG actions , as a result of which the applicant had sustained serious bodily injuries , had been unlawful , and that criminal proceedings should be instituted against them .

On DATE ORG decided that the application fell to be examined under the rules of civil procedure , and gave the applicant ’s mother a time - limit for complying with those rules , in particular in relation to paying a court fee . The applicant ’s mother requested that her application be examined under the rules of criminal procedure , notably LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) . On DATE ORG discontinued the civil proceedings and decided to examine the application under LAW

NORP In its decision of DATE ORG examined the investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and endorsed the investigator ’s conclusions that the police officers had acted lawfully . It also noted that the applicant , no longer a minor , should have applied to court himself . For those reasons , it rejected the application .

The applicant ’s mother appealed against the decision , seeking , inter alia , to declare the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE unlawful and unfounded . On DATE ORG quashed the decision , noting that ORG should not have examined the application , as the applicant ’s mother had lacked authority to act on the applicant ’s behalf , and should not have examined the lawfulness of the police ORG actions in its review under LAW CCrP ( which concerned the lawfulness of NORP decisions ) . Since ORG had not examined whether the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE was lawful and well - founded , ORG could not deal with that issue on appeal .

On DATE ORG held that the application did not fall to be examined under LAW ORG and discontinued the proceedings . On DATE ORG upheld that decision upon an appeal by the applicant ’s mother , reiterating that she had lacked authority to act on the applicant ’s behalf and that the lawfulness of the police ORG actions could not be reviewed LAW It further stated that in her application she had not formulated a complaint that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was unlawful or unfounded .


Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

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

On DATE the applicant and PERSON , his brother , arrived at a NORP bank ( ORG ) where PERSON held a current account ( hereinafter “ the current account ” ) , which he had opened on DATE .

PERSON on DATE withdrew MONEY ( ORG ) , which had been deposited in the current account earlier . At the same time , the applicant asked the bank employee dealing with them to issue CARDINAL bearer savings books ( libretti al portatore ) in his name . The CARDINAL brothers asked the bank employee to then deposit the money PERSON had just withdrawn into the CARDINAL bearer savings books ( in particular , they requested that each savings book have an equal amount of LAW ) .

Asked by the bank employee for the reason for such operations , the applicant and his brother explained that they feared that ongoing criminal proceedings against PERSON in GPE could lead the NORP judicial authorities “ to request information ” ( potrebbe determinare una richiesta di informazioni ) .

Despite the suspicious nature of the operations and the explanation provided by the applicant and his brother , the director of the bank branch gave his consent to carry out the requested transactions , despite his duty under anti - money laundering laws not to engage in operations that appear suspicious . However , he later reported them to ORG ( GPE di Informazione Finanziaria , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , the national authority responsible for combatting money laundering , among other tasks .

NORP In a report of CARDINAL DATE , received by the NORP courts DATE after , the ORG informed the investigating judge ( PERSON , hereinafter the PERSON ) of the above - mentioned facts , which in the ORG ’s opinion possibly constituted money laundering . In particular , the agency emphasised that PERSON had deposited the money in the current account by paying in several cheques which could not be considered “ compatible ” with the professional and commercial activities he had declared to the bank . In fact , the information provided to the bank in DATE had stated that his job consisted of trading in clocks , silver and items made from gold . The trading had originally been done in his own name , as a natural person , and subsequently through a company called PERSON , which had been liquidated in DATE . After that , it had continued through a company called ORG , in which he had never held any administrative position or share capital ( the company had in formal terms been administered by his wife ) . That company had ceased business in DATE . Since most of the cheques which had made up the above - mentioned sum had been deposited in or after DATE , the ORG considered that the transactions had not been justified by or been in line with the above - mentioned facts .

On DATE the authorities in GPE instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL against the applicant for money laundering .

On DATE the PERSON , relying on LAW between GPE and GPE ( ORG bilaterale di ORG ) , reported the suspected operations to ORG against the ORG ( ORG ) and requested information concerning the applicant and his brother .

On DATE the requested judicial authority in GPE informed the PERSON that there were ongoing proceedings for usury against the applicant ’s brother , as well as ORG and T , following a criminal complaint submitted by PERSON , a jewellery trader . The applicant was also considered by the NORP financial police ( ORG ) to be very close to various members of a local ORG group in GPE .

On the basis of that information , the PERSON sent a formal letter of request on DATE to the public prosecutor in GPE for assistance in finding out if the money deposited in the current account in the GPE bank could possibly have been related to the offence of usury or to any other crimes in any way related to PERSON

By a note of CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor replied to the PERSON . He stated that after examining the NORP bank documents attached to the letter of request and comparing those documents with information at his disposal , the money deposited in the GPE current account had to be considered as proceeds of the offence of usury or related to it .

On DATE , following a request by the PERSON , the ORG provided the judicial authority with further information regarding the bank operations carried out by the applicant and his brother .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON informed the applicant ( judicial notice ) , that he was under investigation for money laundering under LAW for the actions taken in GPE on “ DATE ” ( the first page of the same decision gave the correct date of DATE ) . According to the prosecution , the opening of the bearer savings books and the deposit of the money from the current account , held by the applicant ’s brother , into the bearer savings books in equal shares of ORG CARDINAL each for an overall sum of EUR CARDINAL had constituted acts of concealment , transfer and substitution of money , aimed at hiding the criminal origin of the funds , which were the proceeds of the offence of usury .

By the same decision , the PERSON also ordered the seizure of the ORG CARDINAL deposited in the CARDINAL bearer savings books as well as the physical seizure of the savings books themselves , if they were in the possession of the bank , considering the money to be the corpus delicti of the offence of money laundering . Moreover , the PERSON ordered the bank to transfer to it within DATE a copy of all the documents relating to the savings books and to provide any other useful information ( including the precise final balance of each book ) .

On DATE the PERSON also asked the ORG and the judicial police to carry out further investigations .

The results of those investigations were eventually reported by the ORG on DATE . It stated , inter alia , that PERSON had opened a first bearer savings book ( no . CARDINAL ) on DATE and had deposited ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL through CARDINAL deposits of cash . Following a series of other operations the bearer savings book ( no . CARDINAL ) had been closed on DATE . On DATE , PERSON had opened a current account , in which he had deposited the money left in bearer savings book ( no . CARDINAL ) and had over time deposited CARDINAL cheques worth a total ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

According to the ORG , PERSON had written or been the beneficiary of CARDINAL of the above - mentioned cheques for an overall sum of EUR CARDINAL , ORG had written or been the beneficiary of CARDINAL cheques ( EUR CARDINAL ) , T. of DATE ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and FAC of CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Judge of Criminal Appeals ( Giudice d’Appello GPE ) against the PERSON ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . He applied , firstly , to have the whole decision annulled on the ground that it had not complied with the time - limit provided by law . Secondly , he sought the annulment of the seizure since it lacked the requisite fumus delicti ( presumption of a sufficient legal basis ) and because the PERSON had seized all the money in the applicant ’s bank accounts and not just that directly linked with the alleged “ predicate offence ” ( usury ) . In the applicant ’s opinion the PERSON should have seized only ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and not the entire EUR CARDINAL given that in the report submitted by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE only ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had definitely been considered as the proceeds of usury against B.

By a decision of DATE a Judge of ORG in his capacity as Judge of ORG dismissed the complaint . The judge held that the seizure decision had been delivered within the time - limit . He further held that the CARDINAL prerequisites for the application of the disputed seizure , namely fumus delicti and periculum in PERSON ( a danger in delay ) , had been in place .

NORP Moreover , the judge noted that even if the PERSON report had limited the corpus delicti of the usury in question to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , such a limitation did not exclude the possibility that further amounts of money transferred into the savings books could also possibly have been profits from the alleged predicate offence . In the judge ’s view , if that were not the case it was difficult to fathom why the applicant had transferred the whole sum into the savings books and not just LAW .

The applicant appealed to the Third - Instance Criminal Judge ( Terza Istanza Penale ) against the seizure decision and the decision of the Judge of Criminal Appeals . In particular , he highlighted , inter alia , the lack of proportion between the amount of money seized and the sum considered , in the NORP proceedings and the ORG report , to have been the proceeds of usury .

The Third - Instance Criminal Judge dismissed the appeal on CARDINAL DATE after an oral hearing held DATE . He noted that there was no reason to believe that the predicate offence ( usury ) in the criminal proceedings in GPE against the applicant ’s brother was the only offence ascribable to him .

On an unspecified date the applicant was served with a bill of indictment , which read : “ ... for the offence ex Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL bis of LAW ... since with multiple actions connected between them by a common criminal plan , in the Banca di GPE , in the presence of his brother , [ the applicant ] opened QUANTITY bearer savings books of ORG CARDINAL each , where he transferred the overall sum of EUR CARDINAL using money simultaneously ( contestualmente ) withdrawn by his brother [ G.S. ] from his current account , in which the latter had deposited sums deriving from usury or having a criminal origin ... acts committed in GPE , on DATE ” .

On an unspecified date during the applicant ’s trial he was questioned at a public hearing by the first - instance judge on the merits ( namely , the PERSON della PERSON in his capacity as judge on the merits in inquisitorial proceedings ) . The applicant stated that the money that had been seized was profit from his work and savings and that he had decided to deposit it in a NORP bank rather than an NORP one in order to take advantage of the GPE tax system . The applicant also explained that transferring the money had been the result of his reckless behaviour ( “ frutto di un comportamento sconsiderato ” ) after advice from the same bank manager who had later reported the operation to the ORG .

NORP In order to prove that the money did not have a criminal origin , the applicant submitted a report prepared by a financial expert , who also took part in a subsequent hearing and was questioned by the judge . In particular , the expert stated in the report that the money deposited in the NORP current account had to be considered as the result of tax evasion ( redditi non dichiarati ) , which at the time of the facts was an administrative rather than a criminal offence in GPE . The origin of the assets had therefore not been “ criminal ” , as required by law , to amount to the crime of money laundering .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was found guilty of money laundering and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . He was also fined ORG CARDINAL ( multa a giorni ) and prohibited from holding public office and exercising political rights for DATE . In addition , the judge ordered the confiscation of all the seized money ( indicated by the judge as EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , in accordance with LAW .

On DATE the judgment and its reasoning was filed with the court ’s registry .

The first - instance judge held that previous case - law had established that in order to find someone guilty of money laundering it was not necessary to determine the specific legal classification of the predicate offence , perpetrator or victim . It sufficed instead to have evidence ( prova logica ) of the criminal origin of the proceeds in question . Hence , the acts leading to the predicate offence could be described in the charges and eventually ascertained during the trial , without the details of the manner in which the predicate offence had been committed ( anche solo per sommi capi quanto alle modalita’ di commissione ) .

The first - instance judge considered that the alleged tax evasion argument used by the defence had been an acknowledgment that the assets involved had been the result of the embezzlement of the profits of the CARDINAL companies through which PERSON had worked and had de facto confirmed the criminal origin of the money .

NORP Moreover , many factors had demonstrated PERSON ’s involvement in acts of usury , inter alia , the issuing and cashing of CARDINAL of cheques , the cashing of cheques with increased amounts as substitutes for ones not paid out , the cashing of cheques in exchange for high - denomination banknotes and the brief period of time in which all such operations had been carried out . All those elements , together with the results of the NORP investigations , had , owing to their relevance and repeated nature , demonstrated usury , regardless of the results of the NORP criminal proceedings .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment . He complained , inter alia , about the lack of clarity in the charges , which had not contained any precise description of the predicate offence ( apart from a reference to the offence of usury , which had anyway been connected with only a very small part of the confiscated money ) . In his opinion , that had amounted to a violation of his right of defence , as provided , inter alia , by LAW ( a ) of the LAW .

The applicant also challenged the first - instance judge ’s finding that the confiscated money had had a criminal origin and the fact that no other predicate offence ( apart from usury , which in his opinion had to be considered as relating to only a small part of the assets ) had been specified and identified by the judgment .

In addition , the applicant argued that the reason given by the first - instance judge on the specific point of the criminal origin of the money had led to a reversal of the burden of proof . In fact , the first - instance judgment had noted that the applicant had not submitted any evidence of the lawful origin of the money . It followed that there had been a violation of the presumption of innocence and of the applicant ’s right of property .

The applicant also argued that the wording of LAW in force at the time of the facts ( DATE ) had provided for confiscation of only the price , the product and the profit of the offence . According to the defence , the judge had applied an amendment to that provision which allowed the confiscation of assets whose legitimate origin had not been proven by the person found guilty . That being so , a finding of guilt should have led to the confiscation of only EUR CARDINAL , namely only those assets whose criminal origin ( usury to the detriment of B. ) had been shown .

By a judgment of DATE , filed with the registry on DATE , the Judge of ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , reducing , however , the penalty . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office and exercising political rights for DATE . The fine was reduced to ORG CARDINAL .

The judge also upheld the order to confiscate all the money deposited in the savings books since the criminal origin of those assets had been proven ( with reference to usury and embezzlement by the applicant ’s brother to the detriment of the NORP companies ) . Moreover , the laundering had concerned all the money and not just part of it , therefore the applicant could have foreseen that the whole sum could be confiscated .

The judge noted that the law did not require that charges or final judgments refer to a specific legal classification of the predicate offences at the origin of money laundering . Nor was it necessary to specify when an offence had been committed or by whom . The only relevant factor was the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that funds had a criminal origin ( provenienza da misfatto ) . Accordingly , in order to find the applicant guilty of money laundering it had been sufficient for the judge to ascertain that the money allegedly subjected to laundering had not had a lawful origin , that is it had been possible to categorically exclude through evidence and logical deductions that the origin of the proceeds had been anything other than criminal .

Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , as amended by LAW , Article no . CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , and by LAW , Paragraph CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as applicable at the time of the facts ( DATE ) , read in so far as relevant as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person is guilty of money laundering , where , except in cases of aiding and abetting , he conceals , substitutes , transfers or co - operates with others to so do , money which he knows was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions ( misfatto ) , with the aim of hiding its origins .

( CARDINAL ) or whosoever uses , or cooperates or intervenes with the intention of using , in the area of economic or financial activities , money which he knows was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions ( misfatto ) . ”

( CARDINAL ) If the crime at the origin of the laundered money has been committed in a foreign country , such a crime has also to constitute a prosecutable criminal offence in GPE ( deve essere penalmente perseguibile e procedibile anche per PERSON Sammarinese ) .

( CARDINAL ) The judge applies the penalty provided for the predicate offence if it is less heavy . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , read at the time of the commission of the offence in the present case ( DATE ) , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In a judgment of conviction , the Judge shall order ( il giudice ordina ) the confiscation of items belonging to the convicted person which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the crime , as well as the confiscation of the price , the product , and the profit of the crime .

In the judgment of conviction the Judge must always order ( e’ sempre obbligatoria ) the confiscation of items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the offence ex Art.CARDINAL bis ( money laundering ) , or offences connected to terrorism , or offences with the purpose of subverting the constitutional order , as well as ordering the confiscation of the price , product and profit of the crime .... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follow :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In a judgment of conviction , the judge shall always order the confiscation of items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the offences ex Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL aggravated , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL ter , CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL ter , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL comma CARDINAL , CARDINAL ter ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , or offences connected to terrorism , or offences with the purpose of subverting the constitutional order , or the crime ex LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE or the crime ex LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , as well as ordering the confiscation of the price , product and profit of the crime .

If the items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the crime , as well as the price , the product and the profit of the crime , have been completely or partially mixed in with assets having a lawful origin , the judge shall order the confiscation of such assets up to the estimated value of the items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the crime , or the estimated value of the price , product , and profit of the crime .

In all of the above mentioned cases the judge shall also order the confiscation of money or other assets whose lawful origin the convicted person can not demonstrate .

If ( direct ) confiscation is not possible the Judge shall order ( impone l’obbligo di ) the payment of an amount of money equivalent to the value of the items to be confiscated . ”