Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 14+11 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Positive obligations;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

With the exception of the first applicant , a legal entity registered under NORP law on DATE , the remaining CARDINAL applicants live in GPE . Their dates of birth are indicated in the attached annex .

The first applicant , a NORP non - governmental organisation set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender ( ORG ) people in GPE , planned to organise a peaceful march on CARDINAL DATE in the centre of the capital city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia .

NORP In advance of the march , on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant gave FAC and ORG prior notice of its intention to hold a peaceful demonstration on the above - mentioned date . It informed the authorities of the planned route of the march , which would start from the grounds of the Tbilisi Concert Hall and proceed to FAC , and the approximate number of participants . In addition , in the light of a foreseeable protest from those opposed to the NORP community in GPE , given the general background of hostility towards the sexual minorities , the applicant organisation specifically requested that the authorities provide sufficient protection from possible violence .

On DATE the Tbilisi City Hall acknowledged receipt of the first applicant ’s request and explained , in reply , the rights and responsibilities of demonstrators , as provided for by the relevant law .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant organisation was contacted by a senior officer of ORG , who clarified the details of the planned march and confirmed to the organiser that police forces would be deployed to ensure that the procession took place peacefully .

The second to fourteenth applicants submitted written statements describing the exact circumstances surrounding the incident . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , members of the NORP community , staff members of PERSON and other NORP activists , including the CARDINAL abovementioned applicants – approximately thirty people in total ( “ the NORP marchers ” ) – gathered in the grounds adjacent to the GPE FAC . They were holding banners with slogans such as “ I am gay ” , “ I love my gay friend ” , “ Love is love ” and “ Get colourful ” , as well as rainbow flags and umbrellas . A police patrol was present , as agreed , near the GPE FAC .

Shortly before the beginning of the demonstration , members of CARDINAL religious groups , ORG and FAC , arrived in the GPE FAC area . Journalists were also present , recording interviews with the NORP marchers .

QUANTITY from the starting point of the march , members of the CARDINAL above - mentioned religious groups ( “ the counterdemonstrators ” ) stopped some of the NORP marchers and started arguing with them . The counter - demonstrators claimed that nobody was entitled to hold a Gay Pride Parade or to promote “ perversion ” , as it was against moral values and NORP traditions . In reply , the marchers tried calmly to explain that it was not a Gay Pride Parade but a public event dedicated to supporting the fight against homophobia , and continued to walk .

When the NORP marchers reached FAC , they were met there by CARDINAL , who were particularly aggressive and verbally offensive . The counter - demonstrators blocked the marchers’ way , made a human chain and encircled the marchers in such a way as to make it impossible for them to pass . The marchers were subjected to threats of physical assault and to insults , accused of being “ sick ” and “ immoral ” people and “ perverts ” . Further pejorative name - calling such as “ fagots ” and “ sinners ” was also repeated . At that moment , the police patrol cars which had been escorting the marchers from FAC suddenly distanced themselves from the scene .

The NORP marchers , feeling threatened , immediately telephoned the police , alerting them to the danger and requesting the immediate dispatch of additional forces . While waiting for the arrival of the requested police support , the marchers noticed a few police officers present at the scene . However , when they approached them and asked for help , the officers replied that they were not part of the police patrol and it was not their duty to intervene .

The aggression towards the NORP marchers continued to escalate and after DATE thirty minutes , the counter - demonstrators grabbed the banners from the hands of several activists and tore them apart . The counter - demonstrators then resorted to physical attack by pushing and punching the marchers in the front row . As a result of that assault , the sixth applicant ( Mr PERSON ) , who was in the front line of the march , was knocked down , beaten and kicked . Shortly afterwards , several police patrol cars arrived at the scene . Some of the law - enforcement officers intervened by stopping the beating of the sixth applicant . The police officers then separated the opposing parties by standing between them . At that time , the aggressive and agitated counter - demonstrators were still making particularly vitriolic threats , including that the marchers “ should be burnt to death ” and “ crushed ” .

The third applicant ( Mr PERSON ) , who was standing on the pavement with other NORP marchers , asked the police to take more active measures to protect the demonstration . The police responded by forcing him into a patrol car and driving him to ORG of ORG , where he was detained for TIME . He was given no official explanation for his arrest at that time . However , as subsequently explained by the Government , the police had simply sought to distance him from the scene in order to protect him from the angry counter - demonstrators .

CARDINAL other employees of PERSON – the sixth , seventh and tenth applicants ( Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Kalandadze ) DATE were also arrested by the police when they moved from the pavement to the road . They were forced into police patrol cars and driven around the city for TIME before being returned to FAC . As subsequently explained by the ORG , the aim of the ORG short - term retention was twofold : to prevent them from committing an administrative offence – impeding road traffic – and to protect them from the counter - demonstrators’ assault .

Later on CARDINAL DATE , the third and sixth applicants ( Mr L. PERSON and Mr PERSON ) sought medical help for their injuries . The third applicant had a bruised left knee , grazes on his left palm and fingers , a haemorrhagic forearm and a haematoma on the right eyebrow . The sixth applicant had a closed head trauma , cerebral contusions , and bruises on the left side of his chest . DATE , on DATE , the fourteenth applicant ( PERSON ) also visited a doctor . She was diagnosed with a contusion of the left wrist .

The clashes between the marchers and counter - demonstrators were recorded by journalists present at the scene and broadcast in TIME of CARDINAL DATE by a number of national television channels . The faces of the applicants who had been attacked and the assailing counter - demonstrators were clearly recognisable .

On DATE members of the board of the applicant organisation filed several complaints with ORG and ORG concerning the violent acts committed during the march of CARDINAL DATE by representatives of the CARDINAL religious groups . The complaints were mostly based on the account of the circumstances as described in the CARDINAL individual ORG written statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE a criminal investigation was launched into the infliction of light bodily harm on the fourteenth applicant ( Ms M. Tsutskiridze ) by unidentified persons . When questioned as a witness DATE , she stated that unidentified men had grabbed her poster and hit her with the handle of the poster . On DATE the eighth applicant ( PERSON ) was also questioned about the fourteenth applicant ’s injury to her hand . Subsequently , on DATE a forensic medical examination was commissioned by the investigation , the results of which suggested that the bruising and excoriation the fourteenth applicant had sustained on her wrist represented light bodily injuries . The fourteenth applicant was not granted victim status within the framework of that criminal investigation at that time .

On DATE the first applicant received a letter from the deputy director of the police patrol department of ORG in response to the board ORG complaints of CARDINAL DATE . The response stated that , as there were no signs of illegality in the actions of the police during the demonstration , there was no need to launch an investigation against them for abuse of power . As to the counter - demonstrators’ actions , CARDINAL of them had indeed been arrested for transgression under LAW minor breach of public order – and fined CARDINAL NORP laris ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) each .

On DATE the first applicant and CARDINAL individual applicants in the present case ( from DATE ) filed additional criminal complaints with ORG and the Minister of the ORG . The applicants specifically requested that criminal investigations be launched on account of CARDINAL factual situations : firstly , the verbal and physical attacks perpetrated against them by the counter - demonstrators with clear discriminatory intent ; and , secondly , the acts and/or omissions of the police officers who had failed to protect them from the assaults . The applicants emphasised that criminal inquiries should be conducted with due regard to LAW , which provided that the existence of homophobic intent was an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a criminal offence .

NORP The criminal complaints of DATE applicants focussed on the attacks against them by the counterdemonstrators and the lack of police protection . Those applicants did not request an inquiry into the alleged restriction of their liberty by the police during the incident of CARDINAL DATE ( Article CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG replied to the first applicant and the relevant CARDINAL individual applicants that during the incident of CARDINAL DATE the police had called upon both the NORP marchers and the counter - demonstrators to exercise their right to demonstrate in a peaceful manner . The ORG ’s letter then reiterated the information concerning the imposition of administrative sanctions on CARDINAL of the counter - demonstrators ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the alleged beating of the sixth applicant ( Mr PERSON ) by unidentified persons on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE that applicant was interviewed as a witness . He stated that he had been encircled and insulted by CARDINAL or CARDINAL counter - demonstrators . The attackers then started kicking and hitting him . The ill - treatment lasted for TIME , until a police officer finally intervened and removed him from the scene . On DATE a forensic medical expert issued an opinion confirming that the sixth applicant had sustained a contusion and closed head trauma . He was not granted victim status at that time .

In DATE the CARDINAL counter - demonstrators who had previously been fined for administrative misconduct were examined as witnesses in relation to the beating of the sixth applicant . The latter , questioned again in DATE about the incident of CARDINAL DATE , stated that he could no longer remember certain circumstances due to the significant lapse of time . Nevertheless , he confirmed that he would still be able to recognise the faces of those individuals who had assaulted him .

According to the latest information available in the case file , the CARDINAL criminal investigations opened on DATE and DATE into the light bodily injuries sustained by DATE applicants are still pending , and the CARDINAL applicants have never been granted victim status .


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

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

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

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

On DATE the applicant committed a murder .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) imposed a DATE prison sentence for murder on the applicant , under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for retrial .

On DATE ORG again sentenced the applicant to forty years’ imprisonment for murder .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for retrial .

On DATE ORG again sentenced the applicant to forty years’ imprisonment for murder , finding as follows :

“ The court did not accept the defence ’s argument that , when it comes to the question of the applicable law , the law which was in force at the time of the commission of the crime ought to have been applied , as the LAW to LAW ( Zakon o izmenama i dopunama ORG zakona PERSON ) had entered into force on DATE , before the accused was sentenced ... It is clear that with the entry into force of these amendments , the death penalty and a DATE prison sentence can no longer be imposed . Furthermore , the LAW to LAW ( Zakon o izmenama i dopunama ORG zakona PERSON ) ... , which entered into force on DATE , removed LAW and as a result , a DATE prison sentence is prescribed for the crimes for which the death penalty had been previously prescribed ... it is therefore clear that upon entry into force of the LAW to LAW ( DATE ) , the death penalty and the sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment were removed from the range of criminal sanctions , and that LAW of DATE prescribed a DATE prison sentence for that particular crime . ”

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG , in another formation , changed the legal classification of the applicant ’s offence to aggravated murder and upheld the remainder of the judgment .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . The applicant received that decision on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment for murder , under LAW .

On DATE the Vranje ORG again sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for murder .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG , acting as a third - instance court , upheld the judgment . In its reasoning on the question of the applicable law ORG found that the lower courts had correctly applied the more lenient law by sentencing the applicant to a DATE prison sentence . ORG stated :

“ ... LAW prescribed the death penalty for the crime in question , and the death penalty , contrary to the arguments in the appeal , had not been abolished at any stage during which said law had been in force ... [ T]herefore , the [ new ] LAW should be applied with regard to the crime in question as the more lenient law , which it indeed is , as a prison sentence from DATE is more lenient than the death penalty ... ”

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . ORG repeated that the death penalty remained in LAW during the period DATE and DATE , when it had been replaced by a DATE prison sentence . In its reasoning the said ORG stated :

“ ... the chronology of the changes of the criminal law points to an evident continuity in replacing the death penalty with the prison sentences ... ”

Having been served with ORG judgment the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG . Relying on LAW he complained that the most lenient criminal law provision had not been applied . The applicant maintained that during the period between DATE and DATE the courts could only have sentenced him to a CARDINAL or twenty years’ imprisonment and that , therefore , the law in force during that time had been the most lenient .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s constitutional appeal . In its reasoning , ORG referred to the detailed reasoning in its decision concerning the same issue in another case involving different appellants ( Už . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the time the applicants committed the crimes in question , the general provisions of LAW defined which penalties were prescribed on both republic and federal levels . The death penalty was prescribed as one of possible penalties for murder in LAW .

The LAW of GPE ( ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE .

NORP The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :

Human life is inviolable .

The death penalty can not be imposed for crimes proscribed in the federal criminal code . “

The LAW of GPE ( Official Gazette of GPE no . CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE .

Human life is inviolable .

The death penalty can exceptionally be prescribed and imposed only for the most heinous forms of severe criminal acts . ”

LAW of the Socialist GPE DATE ( ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and in ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE .

The relevant provisions of the Code provided as follows :

No punishment or other criminal sanction may be imposed on anyone for an act which , prior to being committed , was not defined by law as a criminal act , and for which a punishment has not been prescribed by statute .

The law that was in force at the time a criminal act was committed shall be applied to the person who has committed the criminal act .

If the law has been altered CARDINAL or more times after the criminal act was committed , the less severe law in relation to the offender shall be applied .

Provisions of the General Part of this Code are applicable to all criminal acts defined in the laws of the federation , GPE and autonomous provinces .

The following punishments may be imposed on the perpetrators of criminal acts :

capital punishment ;

imprisonment ;

a fine ;

confiscation of property .

( CARDINAL ) The term of imprisonment may not be shorter than DATE nor longer than DATE .

( CARDINAL ) The court may impose imprisonment for a term of DATE for criminal acts eligible for the death penalty . ”

On DATE Article CARDINAL of LAW was amended and the death penalty was deleted from the list of available penalties . It was amended to read :

( CARDINAL ) A prison sentence of DATE may be prescribed for the most serious criminal acts or for the most heinous forms of severe criminal acts . This sentence may only be prescribed as an option alongside a prison sentence of DATE [ it can not be a stand - alone penalty ] and may not be imposed on a person who was under DATE CARDINAL at the time of commitment of the criminal act concerned . ”

LAW of GPE DATE ( ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , FAC , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE .

Whoever causes the death of another shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of DATE .

Imprisonment for a minimum of DATE or the death penalty [ is prescribed for ] whoever :

CARDINAL ) causes the death of another in a cruel or heinous manner ;

CARDINAL ) causes the death of another by callous violent behaviour ;

CARDINAL ) causes the death of another and with premeditation endangers the life of a third person ;

CARDINAL ) causes the death of another for gain , to commit or conceal another offence , for callous revenge or other base motives . ”

On DATE this Criminal Code was amended and the death penalty was replaced with a DATE prison sentence .

On DATE , in a similar case to that of the applicants , ORG rejected a constitutional appeal of GPE ( Už . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In its decision , ORG , inter alia , stated :

“ Since the death penalty was prescribed in LAW continuously until DATE , it also was in force at the time of the commission of the crime in question , and was also prescribed for the crime the applicant had been accused and convicted of , ORG found that the [ new ] Criminal Code was without doubt more lenient for the appellant , as it did not prescribe the death penalty as the heaviest penalty in the system of criminal sanctions . According to ORG assessment , any prison sentence is more lenient than the death penalty , because life is of fundamental value to each human being , and it is subject to special protection in both the constitutional and criminal legal spheres . For all the above mentioned reasons , ORG finds the rights of the appellant were not violated as guaranteed by the provisions of LAW . ”

On DATE ORG ( PERSON Ok CARDINAL ) took the view that the death penalty had ceased to be applicable in the republic upon the entry into force of the LAW to LAW of DATE , and that this penalty was abolished at that time and replaced with a DATE prison sentence . The court held :

“ ... in LAW , the death penalty continued to be in force during the period DATE and DATE when , by the mentioned amendments , it was definitively abolished and replaced with a DATE prison sentence . ”


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in PERSON prison .

On DATE the applicant was arrested after he had shot his wife , PERSON , who had recently left him , and injured CARDINAL bystanders . On DATE the GPE am ORG convicted the applicant of murder and negligent bodily injury and sentenced him to life imprisonment . He has been imprisoned ever since .

On DATE ORG determined that the applicant ’s guilt was not of “ particular gravity ” pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , implying that the degree of the applicant ’s guilt did not require an execution of DATE of his sentence .

From DATE until DATE the applicant served his sentence in a semi - custodial regime ( offener Vollzug ) . On DATE this privilege was withdrawn after preliminary investigations were initiated against the applicant who was suspected of having , in DATE , while on prison leave , caused bodily harm to a female acquaintance , PERSON , by using an electric truncheon . On DATE ORG acquitted him of these charges on factual grounds without giving any further written reasons .

On DATE ORG , sitting as an execution of sentence chamber ( PERSON ) rejected the applicant ’s request to suspend the remainder of his sentence and to release him on probation . The chamber considered that the criminal proceedings before ORG had failed sufficiently to clarify the facts of the incident of DATE . Having heard evidence by witnesses , the chamber noted that the applicant had started a sexual relationship with PERSON , who was married , in DATE . When PERSON decided to terminate the relationship in DATE , the applicant had threatened to tell her husband and children about her extramarital relationship . Based on testimony given by several witnesses , the chamber was further convinced that the applicant had attacked PERSON in the evening of DATE . The chamber considered that the applicant ’s submissions that he had not been in GPE at the time of the alleged incident lacked credibility .

With regard to the prognostic decision , the decision reads as follows :

“ The ORG is convinced that a serious danger still emanates from [ the applicant ] for other ORG lives and limbs . The established facts disclose remarkable similarities to the crime against PERSON The convict knew both women from his youth ... Irrespective of the qualification of the incident under criminal law – which is irrelevant for the prognostic decision at hand DATE both incidents were preceded by a long period of time during which the perpetrator and the victim were deeply involved on an emotional level . The convict made elaborate plans for the future with both women , which ended in disappointment , and both women decided to leave him for another man ... The convict was unable to take a clear stance in respect of the separation from both women . He oscillated between aggressive acts and menacing behaviour on the CARDINAL side and pleadings on the other . In both cases , his behaviour followed the same pattern : it started with rather low - key aggression , which escalated during the course of the crisis which was marked by serious feelings of mortification .... Now and then he threatened the women with violence and displayed suicidal tendencies ... PERSON might not yet have been in serious danger , as the convict had still been able to set himself limits . However , the ORG has very serious doubts whether he will remain able to respect these limits in the future . ”

The ORG further observed that the psychological expert Prof PERSON , in an expert report prepared on DATE , had given the applicant a favourable legal prognosis . However , these findings had become obsolete in view of the freshly established events . The ORG finally considered that the fact that the applicant had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings before ORG did not prevent the execution of sentence chamber from making its own assessment of the relevant facts , as ORG had failed sufficiently to examine those facts in a convincing way .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . That court considered that the principle of presumption of innocence did not prevent the execution of sentence chamber from examining on its own motion those facts that were relevant for its prognostic decision .

On DATE , ORG refused to entertain the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . On DATE , the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which he complained about his continued detention . On DATE , a ORG of CARDINAL judges declared this application inadmissible .

DATE , the applicant lodged CARDINAL further requests for the stay of execution of the remainder of the sentence , which were likewise rejected by the domestic courts .

Since DATE , the applicant has again enjoyed relaxed conditions of detention ( Vollzugslockerungen ) , like accompanied outings and therapy . Further relaxed conditions of detention were not granted because on CARDINAL DATE ORG objected to the prison authority ’s proposal in this regard .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting as an execution of sentence chamber , and after having heard the applicant , rejected his request for a suspension of his sentence on probation . The court found that there was no real chance that the applicant would not reoffend if released . This finding was based on the psychiatric expert report submitted by Prof PERSON on DATE , which had found that the applicant continued to be dangerous . ORG further found as follows :

“ On the other hand , it has to be taken into account that the expert detected risk factors in the convict ’s personality which make it difficult to come to an unconditionally positive social and legal prognosis ... [ The expert found ] that these risk factors derived on the one hand from the fact that the convict had failed to deal with his offence , had not admitted any guilt and had not shown sympathy for his victims . In the expert ’s view , he displayed a massive infantile egocentricity which was reflected in distinctive cantankerousness . While it was true that this would not necessarily lead to the commission of further criminal offences , the criminal offence that the applicant had committed to the detriment of PERSON showed that the applicant was willing to enter into relationships with women once more and that a separation would lead to violent acts for reasons of wounded pride . His problem was that he was incapable of dealing either with his own weaknesses or with his catastrophic actions and that he could not take a mature , adult stance towards them ” .

( “ Anderenfalls war hierbei jedoch zu berücksichtigen , dass auch nach den NORP des Gutachters in der Person des Verurteilten Risikofaktoren festgestellt ORG , die eine uneingeschränkt positive Sozial- und Legalprognose ... erschweren . PERSON ergeben sich zum einen daraus , dass PERSON nach der QUANTITY LOC auseinandergesetzt hat und weder seine eigene NORP eingeräumt noch Mitleid mit den Opfern gezeigt hat . Bei ihm besteht nach Auffassung des Sachverständigen eine massive infantile Egozentrik , die sich in einer ausgeprägten PERSON widerspiegelt . PERSON führe dies nicht notwendig zur Begehung weiterer Straftaten . LOC zeige die PERSON zum PERSON der PERSON , dass PERSON geneigt und imstande sei , wieder PERSON einzugehen und dass es bei Trennungen zu Gewalttaten aus gekränkter PERSON komme . Seine Problematik bestehe darin , dass er auβerstande sei , sich PERSON , aber auch PERSON katastrophalen ORG auseinanderzusetzen und diesen gegenüber einen reifen , erwachsenen PERSON . “ )

ORG further considered that there was no need to obtain further expert reports . It observed , in this context , that it was part of the expert ’s task to assess a factual situation from a medical point of view in order to deliver the requested prognostic assessment . The court observed that the risk associated with a suspension of the sentence on probation could only be taken once it was clear that the applicant would adhere to the norms and once his conduct had been tested for some time in the framework of relaxed conditions of detention , in particular in a semi - custodial regime . In this context , the court also welcomed that the applicant was now cooperating and it was thus envisioned to start individual therapy in DATE .

On DATE , the applicant appealed against ORG decision . He submitted , inter alia , that he had not received ORG observations ORG had referred to in its decision and that his rights under LAW were violated because ORG had based its decision on the alleged incident with PERSON , even though he had been acquitted of all charges in this respect . He further maintained that the decision could not be based on the lack of relaxed conditions of detention ; otherwise , the court had an obligation to ensure that appropriate measures were taken .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG based its decision on the expert report , recalling the expert ’s findings , inter alia , that the murder of his wife and the incident with PERSON , as referred to in previous decisions of ORG and of ORG , showed that with regard to women the applicant thought he could execute his own “ law ” at his discretion . He still did not accept his own weaknesses and did not have a plan on how to avoid or deal with critical situations in the future . Referring to its previous decisions of DATE , ORG concluded that the circumstances had not changed to a decisive degree . The murder of his wife was not triggered by the environment , but by the applicant ’s personality . Since the criminogenic structure of his personality remained unchanged , the fact that the applicant ’s conduct was non - objectionable was only of minor prognostic relevance .

The Court of Appeal observed that it had been legitimate for the execution of sentence chamber to investigate on its own motion the incident with PERSON , since this was relevant for the prognosis . Therefore , the expert was allowed to base his prognostic assessment on the execution of sentence chamber ’s findings in this respect . According to ORG , which referred to its prior decisions , this did not constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence . Having regard to the persistent danger that the applicant committed further violent acts in situations which could be compared to the original offence , ORG considered that it was not justifiable to take the risk of suspending the further execution of the life sentence .

On DATE , the applicant submitted a constitutional complaint . He raised in particular the issue of presumption of innocence and further alleged that his right to be heard had been violated since he had not received the prosecution ’s observations .

On DATE , ORG declared the complaint inadmissible for non - exhaustion of prior remedies on the grounds that the applicant had failed to lodge a motion to be heard ( Anhörungsrüge ) .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s motion to be heard on the grounds that the applicant and his counsel had been informed about the content of the public prosecutor ’s statement and of the prison authority ’s submissions during a hearing . Furthermore , the prison authority ’s submissions had been served on the applicant ’s counsel for comments on DATE . On DATE , ORG , relying on the same grounds , rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE , ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s fresh complaint lodged on DATE against the decisions given by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE for adjudication without giving any further reasons . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to order the applicant ’s probationary release and , at the same time , instigated fresh proceedings on the review of the applicant ’s continued detention . On DATE ORG confirmed .

Until DATE , the applicant underwent therapy . He was granted prison leave to attend therapy lessons . As from DATE the applicant was additionally granted CARDINAL or CARDINAL prison leaves DATE . Since DATE the applicant is serving his sentence in a semi - custodial regime .


CASE OF CEREALE FLOR S.A. AND ROŞCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

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

NORP The applicant company is a joint - stock company incorporated under NORP law . PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to pay another company , PERSON , CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL ) ( equivalent to QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . The court issued a writ of enforcement .

On DATE PERSON sought to restart the time - limit for the enforcement of the judgment dated DATE , arguing that it had been unable to initiate enforcement proceedings within the DATE statutory period because the bailiff had lost the original writ of enforcement .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , by a final judgment , dismissed PERSON ’s application as being ill - founded , noting that a duplicate of the writ had been issued in DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld an application by PERSON for a revision of the judgment , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and allowed the statutory time - limit to run anew . The court did not reply to the applicant company ’s contention that the application was timebarred .

After communication , PERSON initiated enforcement proceedings and the applicant company paid MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG acknowledged the applicant ’s entitlement , as a young family , to a plot of land for construction purposes . The court ordered the FAC local administration to grant the applicant ownership of such a plot of land . As there was no appeal , the judgment became final on DATE .

NORP The applicant sought enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but to no avail .

On DATE the FAC local administration lodged an application for a revision of the judgment , arguing that the applicant had not qualified as a young family because her husband had died in DATE and she had therefore lost her entitlement to any land .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for revision , finding that the applicant had requested the plot of land in DATE . Her husband ’s death had not qualified as a new circumstance because the local administration had been aware of that matter at the time of the proceedings . The local administration appealed .

On DATE , in the applicant ’s absence , ORG allowed the appeal , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and upheld the application for revision . It also quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and delivered a new judgment on the merits that dismissed her claims as unsubstantiated .

After communication , the applicant brought a civil action , claiming damages for a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time , pursuant to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . She referred to the period of DATE between DATE and DATE , during which the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not been enforced .

On DATE ORG found for the applicant , acknowledged a violation of her rights and awarded her MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage , MDL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MDL CARDINAL for legal costs . The court noted that the compensation for pecuniary damage represented the average market price of a plot of land of CARDINAL ha . It said that it had used the reference size of CARDINAL ha because the FAC local administration had granted plots of that size when executing similar judgments in respect of young families . ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG , by a final judgment , found the length of the proceedings to have been excessive , which it attributed to the acts of the authorities . It awarded the applicant MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) for costs and expenses . The court dismissed the remainder of the claim , noting that the applicant had failed to substantiate alleged costs for renting alternative accommodation and finding that no compensation for the land should be awarded because the judgment acknowledging her entitlement to that land had been quashed .


Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who in born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The Government of GPE were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicant was an officer of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) . The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre - war flat in GPE .

The detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .

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

In DATE the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in GPE .

On DATE he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .

On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to PERSON , a member of ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the restitution commission , set up by Annex CARDINAL to the DATE LAW in GPE ( “ the GPE Peace Agreement ” ) , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that he was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant ’s request for reconsideration of his claim .

NORP On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex CARDINAL to ORG ) about the inability to repossess his pre - war flat .

On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) rejected the applicant ’s complaint as regards the proceedings before the competent administrative bodies on non - exhaustion grounds ( the applicant had failed to inform the ORG about the decisions of DATE and DATE ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The complaint concerning the decisions of the restitution commission was rejected as incompatible ratione personae . The Commission held that , in accordance with Annex CARDINAL , ORG ( against which the applicant had addressed his appeal ) could not be held responsible for the decisions of the restitution commission because it had not had jurisdiction to examine them .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract of CARDINAL DATE and to register his title to the flat in the land register . On DATE ORG concluded that the action had been withdrawn because the applicant had failed to attend a scheduled hearing without justification .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed the Government of GPE that the applicant had not yet been allocated a military flat in GPE , but that his right to such allocation had been established by the competent body of ORG .

On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava bivše ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG ( Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napuštenim stanovima , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid .

Nevertheless , CARDINAL categories of buyers are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( see section DATE of the Privatisation of Flats Act DATE and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY . However , they are now entitled to compensation under section ORG . Although the compensation was initially envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it in line with ORG cited above , § § CARDINAL and DATE ) .

For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents , see PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

D. Relevant NORP legislation

It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Zakon o stanovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG are now entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinance DATE , PERSON o načinu i kriterijumima za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON ministarstvu za odbranu i PERSON , Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o načinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; the Military Housing Ordinance CARDINAL , PERSON o načinu , kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u ORG odbrane i PERSON i PERSON , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o rešavanju stambenih pitanja u ORG odbrane , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE and DATE , PERSON o rešavanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON o rešavanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinance DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

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


Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

NORP The applicant is a lawyer practising in PERSON .

In the period DATE and DATE the applicant acted as a privately - appointed defence lawyer for ORG , who was indicted in ORG PERSON u ORG ) on charges of abuse of power and authority and aiding and abetting the conclusion of onerous contracts .

The applicant in particular , together with another lawyer , assumed ORG ’s defence at the hearings before an investigating judge . He also lodged several appeals concerning the decisions on ORG ’s pre - trial detention and he lodged an objection against the indictment . In this period he also had a number of meetings and consultations with his client in detention .

During the trial ORG retained the services of another lawyer , and the applicant was no longer representing him . On DATE ORG acquitted GPE , and this was upheld on DATE by ORG ( PERSON ) .

When acquitting ORG the ORG did not rule on the entirety of the costs and expenses of the proceedings , reserving its decision in respect of further possible claims .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking remuneration for his legal representation of ORG during the period DATE and DATE . He relied on the CARDINAL Scale of Lawyers’ Fees ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and claimed a total of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ; approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as his fees in the proceedings , enumerated as follows :

- HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for attending CARDINAL hearings before the investigating judge and QUANTITY hearings before the CARDINAL - judge panel ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) DATE and DATE ;

- HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for drafting CARDINAL appeals lodged during the proceedings ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ;

- HRK CARDINAL for drafting an objection against the indictment ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ;

- HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for ORG visits and consultations with his client in detention , amounting to TIME , in the period DATE and DATE ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ;

- a special increase of PERCENT in respect of the complexity of the case for the first CARDINAL amounts ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ; and


Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON G. O. GPE , Representative of GPE to ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant , a former policeman , was committed to the GPE detention centre ( Следственный изолятор № CARDINAL Капотня ) on bribery charges .

The applicant was visited CARDINAL times by his lawyer before his release on DATE . During the visits , the applicant was locked inside a metal enclosure which he interchangeably called a partition or a cage , but which the Government called a partition . CARDINAL photographs of the visiting area taken by the lawyer , which were not disputed by the Government , show an empty room lit with fluorescent lights , with tiles on the floor and CARDINAL wall . Against that wall stands an upright , CARDINAL - sided enclosure CARDINAL times a man ’s height and CARDINAL by QUANTITY at the base . Its panels are made of finger - thick iron rods crossing at right angles . Mounted on the centre panel is a door secured with a lock . There is a stool inside .

The applicant ’s lawyer protested against this manner of detaining his client , but the prison guards justified their actions by saying that they were acting on the instructions of the prison governor .

Rules for prison visiting areas are regulated by ORG . ORG ( Правила внутреннего распорядка следственных изоляторов уголовно-исполнительной системы , утверждены приказом LOC РФ от CARDINAL октября DATE г. № CARDINAL ) allow an inmate to meet his lawyer CARDINAL - on - one , with no partition between them . A prison guard may supervise the meeting but may not listen to the participants ( § CARDINAL ) .

At the material time , LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed for judicial review of the acts of executive authorities which impinged on individual rights ( Article CARDINAL ) . A court also had the power to order the executive authority to remedy any breaches ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant went to Muş prison during visiting TIME to see her brother , who was being held there in connection with a case related to the ORG , an illegal armed organisation .

The staff responsible for body searches found on the applicant “ close to the left side of her abdomen ” , a piece of paper that had been folded several times and wrapped in tape . It was an unsigned letter dated DATE , written by a member of the ORG and addressed to another member .

The applicant was taken into police custody on DATE and questioned in NORP by the gendarmes the following day . During the interview she stated that she had picked up the object in question in PERSON at the bus stop where she was waiting for the bus to GPE . She had thought that the object might have some value and had intended to remove the wrapping once she was alone .

On DATE she gave a statement to the same effect before the public prosecutor and then before ORG . As she was illiterate , she signed the statements with her fingerprint .

She was remanded in custody after being examined and was released on DATE .

On DATE ORG of Van acquitted the applicant , considering her version of events to be credible .

On DATE the applicant visited her brother again in Muş prison during a religious festival . After the visit she was taken into police custody .

The police report drawn up that DATE stated that the staff responsible for body searches had discovered , hidden in the lining of the applicant ’s dress , a CARDINAL - page document consisting of rolled - up onionskin paper protected by adhesive tape . According to the report , the document contained , in particular , information about the ORG ’s strategy and its activities in prisons , about the conduct to be adopted vis - à - vis the prison authorities and about prison staff .

She was questioned in NORP by QUANTITY gendarmes on DATE . The report stated that she had been reminded of her right to the assistance of a lawyer but had waived that right . As to the facts , she had stated that she had seen a wrapped object in the prison waiting room and had picked it up out of mere curiosity , placing it in her bra . She added that , during the search , the prison officers had discovered the object and had unwrapped it . She had noticed pieces of paper covered in writing . During her visit to her brother she had told him about the incident but he had not said anything about it . The gendarmes had then arrested her as she was leaving the prison .

NORP In response to a question about her personal status , she replied that she was married to G.I. on the basis of a religious marriage , not a civil one , and that they had had CARDINAL children together . Her husband had another partner with whom he had had CARDINAL children .

When asked whether she worked for the ORG , she replied in the negative . She added that , on the first occasion , she had picked up the object thinking it might contain gold and that it was with the same thought in mind that she had taken the paper in the waiting room .

NORP In response to a question about CARDINAL pieces of gold discovered on her during the search , she stated that CARDINAL of them belonged to her daughter and CARDINAL were hers .

After she had been questioned , the public prosecutor called for her to be remanded in custody . As a result she was brought before ORG judge .

Finding that she did not speak NORP with sufficient fluency , the judge asked a member of the applicant ’s family who was waiting in the corridor outside the courtroom to act as interpreter . The relative accepted .

The applicant stated once again that she had found the document in question in the waiting room . Immediately afterwards , she claimed that this statement , and the CARDINAL previously taken by the gendarmes , concerned events that had occurred DATE ; that no document had been discovered on her person when she last visited the prison ; that she had thought the gendarmes were questioning her about earlier events ; and that , not being able to read or write , she had signed the police report with her fingerprint without knowing what it said . When she was informed of the report ’s content she disputed its veracity .

On DATE , after the hearing , the applicant was remanded in custody and criminal proceedings were brought against her before ORG of Van for membership of an illegal armed organisation and , in the alternative , for aiding and abetting such an organisation .

At the various hearings before that court the applicant was assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter .

In the course of the proceedings , the defence disputed the prison ORG version of events . Counsel argued that no document had been found on the applicant , adding that , according to her , a document had certainly been found on a female visitor during the search carried out on entering the LOC and that person had nevertheless been authorised to visit on the grounds that it was a public holiday . The prison officers had failed to arrest her when she left the prison on account of the large number of visitors that day . Having realised that the visitor in question had evaded their control , the officers had decided to arrest the applicant instead , because they knew that a similar accusation had already been made against her . In addition , the defence stated that in her statement to the gendarmes the applicant had said that the impugned object had been found in her bra , whereas the record of the incident indicated that it had been found in the lining of her dress .

On DATE CARDINAL female prison officers were interviewed on the basis of a warrant . The first , ORG , stated that she had personally found the impugned document in the lining of the applicant ’s dress during the body search . The second , PERSON , confirmed this version and stated that she had been called immediately by her colleague after the discovery .

Testimony was also taken from a number of defence witnesses . CARDINAL women who were visiting the prison on DATE of the incident stated that they did not know if the applicant had been searched on entering the prison . Another testified that she had entered the prison at the same time as the applicant but not had seen her being searched . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s brothers testified that he had arrived at the prison with her but that they had become separated during the body search before coming together again to visit their brother . In their conversation with the latter , the applicant had never mentioned any incident during her body search .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was given a prison sentence of DATE and DATE for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation . In its reasoning , ORG observed that , in the first case , the applicant had claimed to have found the impugned document at a bus stop in GPE , and that , in the second , she had stated during the investigation that she had found the document in the prison waiting room . It noted that the applicant had reiterated this statement to a district judge before claiming that she had been talking about the first case and that no document had in fact been found on her during the body search of DATE . The court took the view that there were some serious inconsistencies in the applicant ’s explanations . It noted that if she had really believed that the questioning by the gendarmes and the district judge concerned the events of DATE she should logically have stated that she had found the impugned document not in the waiting room of Muş prison but in PERSON . It concluded that the version of events given by the applicant and the defence witnesses was not credible , and it accepted the testimony of the CARDINAL prison officers , which confirmed the findings in the relevant police report . The court thus found the applicant guilty as charged .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment on a procedural ground .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant again and handed down the same sentence . Moreover , taking into account the time she had already served , it ordered her release .

That judgment was quashed on DATE on an appeal on points of law by the applicant . ORG took the view that the offence with which she was charged had been incomplete and had remained at the attempt stage . It dismissed the applicant ’s other grounds of appeal on points of law , including the question of the absence of an interpreter in police custody .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for attempting to aid and abet an illegal armed organisation . It adopted the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments .

On DATE ORG referred the case back to the first - instance court stating that , in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL , setting out the rules and procedures for the application of the new LAW which had recently entered into force , the case had to be re - examined in the light of that new code to determine whether the applicant could be granted the benefit of a more lenient provision .

On DATE ORG ( formerly ORG ) convicted the applicant once again , adopting the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments , and specifying that the provisions of the former code were more lenient .

The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment , submitting in particular that she had not been assisted by an interpreter while in police custody .

Her appeal was dismissed on DATE .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

Following the establishment of the communist regime in GPE in DATE , the ORG proceeded to nationalise buildings and agricultural land on a large scale . After the fall of the communist regime , the ORG enacted a series of laws aimed at affording redress for breaches of property rights by the former regime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

Laws nos . NORP and CARDINAL/CARDINAL established the principle of restitution of nationalised residential property and compensation in cases where restitution was no longer possible . Law no . NORP introduced a cap on compensation , but this was subsequently abolished by Law no . CARDINAL .

Law no . DATE attempted to harmonise the administrative procedures for restitution of properties covered by the above - mentioned laws and by the special legislation concerning restitution of agricultural land .

On DATE , the ORG adopted a pilot judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) , in which it singled out the deficiencies of the restitution mechanism , indicating to the respondent ORG under LAW that new steps needed to be taken in order to process the restitution claims with more efficiency .

On CARDINAL DATE Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL came into force , setting out various procedures available to petitioners seeking settlement of their restitution claims .

Based on the parties’ observations and comments regarding the new remedies set out by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , on DATE the ORG found in its judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , § § DATE , DATE ) , that the mechanism established by the new law offered a range of effective remedies that needed to be exhausted by those claimants whose complaints referred to CARDINAL of the following situations : the existence of concurrent titles to property with respect to the same plot of agricultural land ; the annulment of such title to property without any compensation ; the delivery of a final judgment confirming the right to compensation in respect of the unlawful seizure by the ORG of any type of immovable property , without fixing the amount ; the failure to pay such compensation awarded in a final judgment ; and the prolonged failure to give a decision on a restitution claim .

NORP However , the ORG also held that PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not contain any provisions of a procedural or substantive nature capable of affording redress on the matter of the existence of final judgments validating concurrent titles to property with respect to the same residential property . Furthermore , no procedure was available to former owners who , in the absence of restitution , would have been entitled to compensation but who did not to have access to it because the circumstances rendering restitution impossible had become known after the expiry of the time - limit for lodging compensation claims ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP The complaints set out in the present applications reflect the circumstances described above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . In particular , the applicants have alleged that their title to the property ( building and appurtenant land ) had been acknowledged by the domestic courts ; however , owing to the sale of the property by the ORG , the applicants were prevented from enjoying their respective right . They claimed that this deprivation , together with the total lack of compensation for it , had imposed on them an excessive and disproportionate burden .

In DATE , under Decree no . CARDINAL , the ORG nationalised the building and its appurtenant land located at CARDINAL PERSON in GPE , which belonged to the applicant ’s predecessors .

In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts for restitution of the above - mentioned property , alleging that its nationalisation had been unlawful and that therefore the property right had left her ORG rightful ownership only when it had been transferred to her as heritage . The claim was formulated against ORG and PERSON , a ORG - owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the ORG .

In its judgment of DATE the GPE ORG allowed the claims and ordered that the property be returned to the applicant , in her capacity as sole heiress of its rightful owners . The court held that the immovable property had been nationalised unlawfully , since the applicant ’s predecessors had not belonged to any of the social categories covered by the nationalisation decree and thus their right of property had been valid and continuous , being transferred as heritage to the applicant ; the ORG could not therefore claim a valid title to the property .

The judgment was not appealed against and thus became final .

On CARDINAL DATE the Mayor of GPE issued a restitution decision in respect of the immovable property located on PERSON , in compliance with the operative part of the judgment of DATE .

Under the terms of contracts entered into in accordance with PERSON no . DATE , company B. , managing the building ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had sold the flats located therein to the tenants .

The sale contract in respect of the first - floor flat was concluded on DATE between PERSON , representing the ORG , and the tenants , ORG and GPE

NORP The sale contract in respect of the ground - floor flat was concluded on DATE between B. on behalf of the ORG , and the tenant , PERSON

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged before the domestic courts CARDINAL civil actions seeking the rescission of the sale contracts of CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , in so far as the ORG had sold property which it had not owned .

The final judgment of DATE given by ORG dismissed the claim in respect of the first - floor flat , holding that the applicant did not have legal standing to ask for the rescission of the sale contract , in so far as she had not been a party thereto .

In its final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim in respect of the ground - floor flat , holding that the buyer had acted in good faith and had thus acquired a valid title to the property , in accordance with the provisions of PERSON no . MONEY , which had entered into force in the meantime . The court also held that the applicant was eligible for compensatory measures pursuant to the notice of claim ( notificare ) lodged with the administrative authorities under PERSON no . MONEY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged another action before the domestic courts , seeking again the rescission of the sale contract concerning the first - floor flat . This time , however , she based her claim on the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL . In its final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , holding that in so far as the sale contract had been concluded by the buyers in good faith , it was in compliance with the law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a notice of claim with ORG under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , seeking reparatory measures in respect of the QUANTITY flats . Several documents were appended to the application , including a copy of the judgment of DATE and a copy of the inheritance certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant was the sole heiress of her predecessors .

On DATE and DATE ORG requested the applicant to complete her administrative file with documents related to her claim . However , the request did not reach the applicant , as the contact information mentioned in the DATE application was no longer valid .

As far as the ORG is aware , no decision has been taken in respect of this claim .

On DATE flat no . CARDINAL , located in building A/CARDINAL , FAC , PERSON – the applicants’ property – was seized by ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , following the ORG decision to leave the country . They were not notified of the administrative decision to confiscate the property .

DATE , the applicants wrote several letters to various domestic authorities , including ORG , ORG and the director of company NORP , which managed the building on behalf of the ORG , seeking to obtain possession of the flat . The replies stated that the ORG claims could not be granted , as no relevant legislation had yet been enacted concerning reparatory measures in respect of previously nationalised property . In CARDINAL of the replies sent by ORG on DATE , the applicants were informed that flats which had been nationalised under LAW could not be purchased by their current tenants from the local authorities .

On DATE the applicants lodged a claim with the administrative authorities , seeking reparatory measures in respect of flat no . CARDINAL , in accordance with the provisions of PERSON no . DATE .

On DATE company NORP sold the flat to the tenants , GPE and PERSON

On DATE the administrative authorities dismissed the applicants’ claims lodged under PERSON no . DATE , in view of the fact that the flat had already been sold to its tenants .

On DATE the applicants lodged before ORG an action against ORG , aiming to recover possession of flat no . CARDINAL . They claimed that the confiscation of the property had been unlawful , as on the one hand it had been in breach of the LAW in force at the time , and on the other hand , they had not been notified of the administrative decision to confiscate it .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicants’ claims . The defendant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal because no statement of appeal had been submitted . The decision thus became final .

On DATE the applicants , assisted by a bailiff , recovered possession of flat no . CARDINAL ; the relevant minutes mentioned that the flat was empty and unfurnished .

On DATE GPE and PERSON challenged the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They claimed to be the rightful owners of flat no . CARDINAL , having bought it in good faith in DATE ; furthermore , in so far as they had not been parties to the proceedings terminated by the outstanding judgment of CARDINAL DATE , they were not bound by it ( inopozabilă ) .

By a final judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the claims of GPE and PERSON In its reasoning , the court essentially held that the sale contract had been validly and lawfully concluded by the tenants , who had acted in good faith at the time of the sale . Moreover , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE awarding the applicants title to the property was unenforceable ( inopozabilă ) against the buyers , because they had not been parties to the respective proceedings .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action against GPE and PERSON seeking to recover possession of flat no . DATE and urging the courts to find the sale contract unlawful . Their claims were allowed by ORG on DATE .

An appeal lodged by the defendants was allowed by ORG on DATE . The court considered that the sale of the flat had been lawful . At the same time , it held that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the flat , equivalent to its market value at the date of payment .

NORP The applicants have not lodged any claims under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , who at that time was undergoing inpatient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital , was arrested in connection with an offence of fraud .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of having committed fraud as part of a group , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE and DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE respectively upheld that judgment .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in PERSON no . CARDINAL ( “ the GPE ” ) .

During his detention in the GPE in GPE , the applicant was held in various cells of the same type . Each cell measured QUANTITY m. and was occupied by CARDINAL people . The window was covered by a metal shield and metal bars , preventing daylight and fresh air from reaching the cell . There was no ventilation in the cell , and most of the detainees were smokers . In DATE it was extremely hot , and this forced everyone to wear very little clothing , and during DATE it was very cold . The light in the cell was very poor , with only an electric bulb of QUANTITY positioned above the front door . It was always switched on . A centrally operated radio loudspeaker was constantly on from TIME , playing loud and unvaried music . Detainees had no access to television or newspapers .

The cells had poor sanitary conditions and were infested with rats , mice , bedbugs , lice , spiders and cockroaches . They were very damp and the walls were covered with mould and stained with smoke . The toilet was not separated from the living area , had no flush , and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air . Detainees were forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilet . No toiletries , apart from soap , were distributed to them . Bed linen was issued once and for the whole period of detention , which was DATE in the applicant ’s case . His mattress was dirty and torn . The food was of poor quality , often made from products which had spoiled , and was unvaried . It smelled bad . No meat , fresh fruit or vegetables were provided . Detainees were allowed to take a shower once DATE , or even once a fortnight , and then only for TIME . In order to get to the shower area or investigation rooms , or to be transferred to court , detainees had to pass through an underground tunnel which had poor lighting and was flooded with sewage . The shower was dirty and the water flow could not be adjusted . The floor was flooded with dirty water , as the drainage system did not work properly . The hairdresser at the GPE used the same hair clippers on all of the detainees , without disinfecting them . CARDINAL pair of scissors was available for cutting their nails , and these were also not disinfected . The applicant ’s cellmates were often suffering from tuberculosis , hepatitis , and scabies , or were HIV - positive .

Outside walks were at the discretion of the GPE authorities . Sometimes they took place DATE , and sometimes they took place once DATE .

NORP On DATE the applicant slit his wrists in protest against the conditions of detention .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell . The cell had a concrete floor and was flooded with cold water in order to make him suffer more . As a result , he got a fever and had to spend DATE at the GPE ’s medical unit . No food or hot water was provided .

On unspecified occasions in DATE the applicant was taken to court for hearings or to examine his case file . On each occasion his journey took DATE . He did not receive any food or water during the trips . He was transported in a prison van , which was originally designed to carry a maximum of QUANTITY passengers , but which actually contained QUANTITY to CARDINAL detainees whose hands were handcuffed behind their backs . Before being placed in the van , the detainees were held in a small , airless and smoky preliminary reception cell . Upon returning to the detention facility , the detainees had to wait for a long time in the van before being transferred to the preliminary reception cell , where they also had to wait to be escorted to their cells . It was very cold in the prison van in DATE and hot in DATE . During the court hearings the applicant was not taken to the toilet . He had to take an empty plastic bottle with him so that he could relieve himself during hearing breaks .

To support his application , the applicant submitted , inter alia , photos showing the poor sanitary conditions of different cells he claimed to be cells in the GPE . He also presented written statements from his cellmates .

The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in the GPE had been adequate , mainly referring to the statutory regulations on detention . They argued that the applicant had been held in CARDINAL cells of the same type during his detention in the GPE , and it was unclear which of them he was referring to in his complaint to the ORG . The Government provided no details as to the exact size of the cells , but stated that an inspection carried out at some point after the complaint had been communicated to the ORG had determined that each cell in the ORG allowed each detainee CARDINAL sq . m of personal space , which was in compliance with the relevant domestic standards . A toilet was located in the corner of each cell , separated from the living area by fixed partitions . The windows were protected by metal bars , and allowed daylight and fresh air to reach the cells . All cells were equipped with artificial ventilation and lighting , as well as a radio . The food the applicant received met the standards set by domestic law , and he was provided with bedding in accordance with the relevant regulations .

The Government further denied that there had been rats and insects in the cells , as CARDINAL times a year thorough measures against rats were implemented and the entire GPE facility was disinfected . The statutory regulations also provided that the GPE detainees had DATE access to bathing facilities . The conditions of those facilities were appropriate . Toiletries were available at the GPE shop , which the applicant was free to use . The applicant ’s right to a TIME DATE walk was never breached .

The Government could not provide any information about the dates and conditions of the applicant ’s transport to and from the court hearings , because the time - limit for keeping the relevant documents had expired and the records had been destroyed . However , they provided a description of the general transport arrangements and advised that prison vans had been in use in DATE . The vans were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people in CARDINAL compartments ( CARDINAL larger ones and one designed for single occupancy ) . The vans had no windows , but they were equipped with ventilation grills and had metal bars integrated in the lower and upper part of the vehicle door . The Government further submitted that , on average , it took TIME to transport detainees from the GPE to ORG of PERSON ( a distance of QUANTITY ) , and TIME to transport them to ORG of PERSON ( a distance of QUANTITY ) . The latter court was not equipped with a room for defendants , and the detainees were therefore held in the courtroom . They were able to use public toilets . At FAC of Poltava the detainees were kept in the rooms for defendants , which were equipped with all the necessary sanitary facilities .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was serving his sentence in ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the prison ” ) .

Upon his arrival , the applicant was put in the admission ward ( карантин ) for DATE . The cell measured QUANTITY m and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners . Some of them were suffering from HIV and tuberculosis . There was no daylight in the cell , as the only small window was covered with metal bars , and a grid was attached to it from the outside . The artificial light in the cell was very poor , and there was only an electric bulb of CARDINALW. It was always switched on . There was no natural or artificial ventilation in the cell . The toilet was not separated from the living area , had no flush , and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air . The cell was infested with rats , mice and cockroaches . Outside walks did not take place on a DATE basis , but at the discretion of the prison authorities , and lasted TIME .

During his time in the prison , the applicant was placed in the admission ward CARDINAL times , each time for DATE .

The applicant was placed in disciplinary cells CARDINAL times : from DATE , from DATE , and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and on some occasions with people who were suffering from tuberculosis . The cells were dark , damp and cold . The toilet had no flush and emitted a smell . Outside walks lasted TIME and took place in very small yards on and under the prison roof , and were allowed to take place CARDINAL times per week . Once per week the applicant had access to a shower . There was no hot water in the shower and the floor was flooded with dirty cold water . No visits or exchanges of correspondence were allowed . The applicant ’s plank bed was chained to the wall from CARDINAL TIME , so he had to stand during this time , although this went against his medical prescription . There was no chair in the cell and his walking stick was taken away .

The applicant spent the remainder of his sentence in the sociopsychological unit of the prison ( unit no . CARDINAL ) in the following conditions .

His cell measured QUANTITY m and accommodated CARDINAL to CARDINAL prisoners . Many of them were HIV - positive , suffering from tuberculosis , hepatitis and fungal diseases . The cell was dirty and infested with parasitic insects . The light in the cell was very poor , with CARDINAL electric bulbs of CARDINAL of which did not work . The artificial ventilation in the cell did not work , and most of the prisoners were smokers . In DATE it was extremely hot in the cell and during the DATE it was very cold . The prisoners had to cook their food using an open flame , because of power cuts in the unit from TIME to TIME

No disinfection products were available , and all cellmates shared water containers , scissors and a needle . ORG , toilets and dining rooms were also in an unhygienic state . The toilets had no flush and emitted a foul smell . The food was of poor quality and was often made from products which had spoiled .

Prisoners could use the showers DATE . The bathroom was equipped with CARDINAL shower taps and it was not possible to adjust the water flow or temperature . CARDINAL prisoners had TIME to complete the whole process , including getting to the bathroom , which was QUANTITY away from the cell . Thus , QUANTITY prisoners had to share CARDINAL shower tap at the same time . The floor was flooded with dirty water , as the drainage system did not work properly . The hairdresser at the prison used the same hair clippers on all the prisoners , and these were not disinfected .

To support his allegations , the applicant submitted photos which he claimed were of a disciplinary cell and the exercise yards of the prison . He also referred to interviews former prisoners had given to newspapers , in which they provided , inter alia , a similar description of their detention conditions , including the disciplinary cells . In order to support this part of his application , the applicant also made reference to a complaint to an MP by his former cellmate , who was HIV - positive , and to the newspaper articles mentioned above , which contained interviews with other prisoners . Lastly , he relied on a report by the ORG regarding the general unsatisfactory detention conditions of prisons in GPE .

The Government referred to the statutory regulations governing detention in particular types of cells , and submitted the following .

The quarantine cell at the prison measured QUANTITY . m and could accommodate CARDINAL prisoners . It had CARDINAL windows , which were not covered with metal bars and could be opened at any time . CARDINAL artificial ventilation channels were also available . The artificial light in the cell was ensured with CARDINAL electric bulbs of CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINALW. The cell was disinfected on a DATE basis and measures against rats were implemented no less than DATE . The duration of DATE outside walks was not TIME .

The isolation unit consisted of CARDINAL disciplinary cells , CARDINAL of which were for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis . The concrete floor of all the isolation wards was covered with wooden planks . An appropriate temperature in the cells was ensured by radiators , and DATE outside walks lasted not TIME .

Each prisoner in unit no . CARDINAL had QUANTITY . m of living space . The number of beds corresponded to the number of prisoners , and CARDINAL prisoners shared CARDINAL bedside table . HIV - positive prisoners , as well as those suffering from tuberculosis , were held separately from healthy prisoners . The unit had CARDINAL windows , which could be opened to let in fresh air ; artificial ventilation was also available . Artificial light in the cell was ensured with CARDINAL electric bulbs of CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL , and the temperature in the unit was never lower than CARDINAL˚C. Smoking was only allowed in smoking areas , and those who breached the rules faced administrative punishment . The Government denied the applicant ’s allegations that there had been power cuts and that the prisoners had had to use an open flame to prepare their food . In this respect , they argued that cooking in the unit had been prohibited by law .

Prisoners were provided with soap and could buy other necessary toiletries , such as toilet paper , toothbrushes and toothpaste , at the prison shop , as the relevant regulations made no provision for these items to be provided by the ORG . Prisoners had access to bathing facilities DATE , and could use the services of a hairdresser . The hairdresser ’s tools were disinfected . The quality and quantity of the food corresponded to the domestic standards , and no cases of poisoning had been registered .

In DATE and DATE the applicant sustained head injuries , and in DATE he suffered spinal trauma . As a result , he experienced neurological dysfunction and his eyesight deteriorated . When arrested , the applicant was undergoing inpatient medical treatment for his health problems at a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE , upon his arrival at the GPE , the applicant underwent an initial medical examination by a general practitioner , a psychiatrist , a dentist , a dermatovenereologist , and a tuberculosis specialist . He also had an X - ray . No particular health problems were noted .

According to the applicant , from DATE he started experiencing severe pain in his back and legs , and he sought assistance from the medical unit at the GPE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist from ORG no . CARDINAL . The applicant ’s mother arranged the appointment with the neurologist , as the GPE did not have the relevant medical specialist . He was diagnosed with severe after - effects of closed head injuries ( in DATE and DATE ) , stomping gait syndrome , post - traumatic spinal osteochondrosis , and vertebrogenic left - side polyradiculitis , and was prescribed treatment ( нейровітан , тіоцетам ) .

On DATE the applicant had an X - ray of his spine and was diagnosed with post - traumatic osteochondrosis and spondylarthrosis deformans .

On DATE , following an X - ray , the applicant was diagnosed with early arthrosis of the left knee .

On unspecified dates in DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment at the GPE medical unit on account of his neurological problems and vegetative - vascular dystonia , chronic gastroduodenitis , myopia , and arthrosis of the left knee .

NORP On DATE the applicant was registered with a psychiatrist as a result of his going on hunger strike ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) and self - harming ( DATE ) , and he was regularly examined by the psychiatrist .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner at the GPE .

On DATE the applicant had an X - ray and was diagnosed as having ribs which were too close together .

On DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the neurological department of the hospital located at prison no . CARDINAL . He was diagnosed with osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine , right - sided lumbodynia , radicular pain syndrome , the after - effects of head injuries , asthenoneurotic syndrome , and toxic polyneuropathy . He was prescribed treatment ( пентоксифілін , піроксікам , нейровітан ) .

On DATE the applicant was given a walking stick .

Between DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist , a surgeon and a general practitioner . They confirmed the earlier diagnosis relating to the problems with his spine .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and was found to be healthy .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist from ORG no . CARDINAL . His mother had arranged the appointment . The neurologist confirmed the diagnosis of CARDINAL DATE and prescribed treatment ( діклак , нейровітан ) .

After his transfer to the prison on DATE , the applicant had a medical examination which confirmed the previous diagnosis . He was advised to undergo inpatient treatment at the neurological department of the hospital at prison no . CARDINAL . He stayed at the hospital from DATE and from CARDINAL to DATE .

On DATE the applicant was classified as having group III disability status ( group III being the least severe category ) . He was expected to remain in this category for DATE .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C.

On DATE the applicant decided to have an HIV test . According to the results of this test dated DATE , the applicant had HIV antibodies . He was also diagnosed with persistent generalised lymphadenopathy and registered as an HIV - positive person .

On DATE the applicant had an X - ray of his chest and was found to be healthy .

On DATE the prison authorities informed the applicant about the results of the HIV test . According to the applicant , the authorities tried to conceal the situation , and he lodged a number of complaints in order to find out about the test results .

In DATE and DATE the applicant complained to different authorities that , despite his requests , no further measures had been taken to specify his diagnosis and provide him with the relevant medical treatment .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectious disease specialist . He was diagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV and persistent generalised lymphadenopathy . It was decided that he should be transferred to the hospital at ORG no . CARDINAL in LOC , which specialised in HIV treatment ( “ the HIV Treatment Facility ” ) , in order to decide whether he had to have antiretroviral therapy ( ART ) . The applicant was further prescribed a CDCARDINAL cell count at ORG and ORG ( “ the AIDS Centre ” ) on DATE . The ORG has not been informed of the results of that test , if any exist .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had a medical examination at ORG .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a chronic duodenal ulcer at an acute stage .

On DATE he was further diagnosed with HIV , chronic compensated hepatitis , a chronic duodenal ulcer in remission , chronic cholecystitis and pancreatitis in remission , and the after - effects of closed head injuries .

On DATE the applicant was rediagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist , who confirmed the earlier diagnosis .

From DATE until an unspecified date the applicant had medical treatment at ORG on account of his clinical stage CARDINAL HIV , onychomycosis of the feet , vertebrogenic radiculopathy in unstable remission , toxic polyneuropathy , slight myoparesis of the feet , tardive after - effects of closed head injuries , chronic viral hepatitis B in remission and duodenal ulcer in remission .

On DATE the applicant was reclassified as having group III disability status for DATE , on account of the diagnosis relating to his central nervous system .

On DATE the applicant was rediagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV and onychomycosis of the feet .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer in remission and chronic hepatitis in remission .

On DATE , upon being released from the prison , the applicant was declared to be in a satisfactory state of health . He was advised to register with an infectious disease specialist based near his home .

In DATE the applicant consulted a neuropathologist , a surgeon and an eye specialist . He was diagnosed with second - degree discirculatory encephalopathy , vestibular - atactic and cephalic syndromes , spinal osteochondrosis , radiculopathy with slight paresis of the right foot , stage CARDINAL - CARDINAL arthrosis of the knee , hyperopia , phacosclerosis , retinal angiopathy and amblyopia of both eyes .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was also diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B , a chronic duodenal ulcer in unstable remission , chronic bronchitis and cardiosclerosis .

In DATE the applicant had a CDCARDINAL cell count , the result of which was CARDINAL cells . On DATE , at the AIDS Centre , the applicant was diagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV , recurrent infections of the lower respiratory airways , tuberculosis , chronic viral hepatitis C and a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder . Following this examination , the applicant received unspecified medical assistance at the AIDS Centre and was advised to go before a medical commission which could decide on his assignment to a disability group .

On DATE the applicant was classified as having group II disability status . On DATE he was confirmed as having this status .

Referring to , inter alia , the medical evidence he had submitted to the ORG , the applicant alleged that his health had seriously deteriorated while he was in detention , in particular owing to the poor conditions of his detention , combined with the absence of medical care .

The Government stated that the medical assistance provided to the applicant throughout his detention had been adequate . They provided no medical evidence in this regard , mainly referring to the fact that the GPE registers for the relevant DATE on medical assistance provided to detainees by the GPE medical specialists had been destroyed because the time - limit for keeping those documents had expired .

At the same time , the Government provided some factual information regarding some of the applicant ’s medical examinations in both detention facilities . These submissions appear to be based on the information contained in a reply to the applicant ’s complaint regarding the lack of medical treatment in prison , which was given by a prosecutor in DATE . The Government asserted that the relevant medical documents had been studied by prosecutors during their inquiries into the applicant ’s complaints regarding the lack of medical assistance , and no proof had been found .