Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She originates from GPE and is a NORP Orthodox Christian . In DATE she started a relationship with a NORP man , PERSON , who lived in GPE , and in DATE they married in GPE . Subsequently , the applicant was first granted a temporary residence permit in GPE until DATE and then , in DATE , she was granted a permanent residence permit . The applicant moved to GPE in DATE and , on DATE , she and PERSON had a son , X.

Due to a suspected infection , X remained in hospital for DATE following his birth before he was discharged in good health . On DATE the applicant and PERSON took X to hospital where it was revealed that he had bruises on his genitals . The family was allowed to return home after X had been examined . On DATE X ’s condition worsened and he suffered from cramps . The applicant and PERSON again took him to hospital . X suffered extensive bleeding in the brain and a chief physician at the hospital suspected that he had been severely ill - treated . X was kept in hospital .

On DATE , a physician filed a report on suspected child abuse with the social services and , on the same date , ORG ( arbetsmarknads- och familjenämnden , hereafter ORG ) in PERSON decided , under section CARDINAL of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons ( NORP med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga , TIME ; hereafter the “ DATE LAW ) , to take X into immediate compulsory public care on a provisional basis . The decision was executed on that DATE .

On DATE ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE PERSON confirmed the decision of ORG . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision .

Subsequently , ORG applied to ORG for a care order in respect of X. The applicant and PERSON , who were represented by legal counsel , opposed the measure while X ’s legal representative agreed that it would be in the child ’s best interest to be placed in compulsory public care .

By judgment of DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , granted a care order in respect of X. The court noted that , according to a medical certificate submitted by a chief physician , X had bruises on his genitals , probably injuries from being squeezed . Bleeding in the brain and a red spot on the left side of the chest strongly suggested that X had been gripped tightly and violently shaken and suffered from “ shaken baby syndrome ” . X had severe brain injuries and would probably suffer lifelong mental and physical disabilities . The court found that X ’s injuries had occurred while he had been in his GPE care . Thus , in the court ’s opinion , it did not matter who had actually caused the injuries but it sufficed to state that the parents had failed to protect X from being injured . The court concluded that the parents had shown a serious lack of ability to care for their son . The judgment had immediate effect .

On DATE ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE upheld the lower court ’s judgment . It held that neither the oral statements made before it , nor anyreached by ORG .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .

In the meantime , on DATE , X was transferred from the hospital to an evaluation and treatment home ( utrednings- och behandlingshem ) together with the applicant and PERSON The main responsibility of that home was to secure GPE ’s protection . It also had the tasks of evaluating the GPE ability to care for X , of providing the parents with such abilities if needed and of supporting the parents in their crisis situation . The staff at the home found , after the family had been there for DATE , that the applicant had shown good ability to satisfy X ’s basic physical needs , take care of his practical needs and had been constantly present for him . However , she had shown considerable flaws in her emotional interaction with X and it was said , among other things , that she had not been able to separate her need for consolation and emotional care from X ’s feelings and needs . Her attitude towards PERSON was described as if she objectified him rather than regarded him as an individual in his own right , which in the report was described as highly worrying . It was further noted that she did not accept PERSON ’s injuries and that she did not talk at all about his future disabilities . As regards PERSON , the staff at the home noted inter alia that he had been absent to a great extent due to his work commitments .

NORP In DATE a criminal investigation concerning suspected child abuse in respect of the applicant and PERSON was discontinued since it was impossible to prove that either of them had committed the abuse .

In DATE X was placed in a family home ( familjehem ) consisting of a NORP married couple .

In DATE the applicant twice reported B. to the police , claiming he had threatened to kill her and her family .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to terminate the public care . She insisted that she had never ill - treated X nor witnessed anyone else doing so . She had had no reason to suspect that X risked ill - treatment at home . Moreover , she submitted that she and PERSON had divorced and that , through an interim decision , she had been granted sole custody of X while PERSON had limited visiting rights . Furthermore , she had completed her studies in NORP for immigrants and was planning to find work .

ORG ordered an investigation into the family ’s situation which was completed on DATE . The purpose was to investigate and analyse whether X should remain in public care . The social services spoke with the applicant and PERSON , visited the family home and gathered relevant information for the case . Once finalised , the investigation report stated , inter alia , that according to a medical certificate issued by Professor O.F. , a specialist on “ shaken baby syndrome ” , PERSON was suffering from that syndrome . It was also stressed that PERSON ’s life had been in danger when he had been shaken , that he had suffered lasting brain injuries and would need care for the rest of his life . It was further noted that X had suffered injuries to his genitals . Moreover , it was stressed that it was the social services’ responsibility to ensure X ’s safety and that , regardless of which parent had caused PERSON ’s injuries , the other parent had failed to protect him .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to terminate the public care . In its decision ORG referred to the findings of the investigation report .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG and requested that the care order be terminated . She maintained that there was no need to keep X in public care as she was fully capable of caring for her own child . She further criticised the medical certificates that had been submitted in the case and contested the assumption that X suffered from “ shaken baby syndrome ” . Instead she claimed that ORG ’s injuries had been caused by malpractice of personnel at the hospital where he had been treated . She further argued that ORG human rights were being violated since he was not allowed to speak his native language and practise his religion . She also complained about the proceedings before ORG , which she considered to be flawed .

ORG contested the applicant ’s claims , stressing that X ’s life had been in danger and that he had suffered lasting brain injuries while in his GPE care .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to obtain an opinion from ORG of ORG ( Socialstyrelsens Rättsliga råd ) . According to ORG , there was no reason to obtain such an opinion .

Both parties submitted documentary evidence . The applicant submitted , inter alia , a medical certificate of her own , stating that X likely suffered from a severe brain injury , probably anoxic brain injury ( injury to the brain due to a lack of oxygen ) .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the case , where the applicant insisted that she had not in any way ill - treated X. Nor had she seen that X had been harmed by PERSON or any other person . According to her , there was nothing to suggest any flaws in her parental abilities and she maintained that GPE ’s injuries had been caused by malpractice at the hospital . ORG stated that it could not rule out the possibility that X had been ill - treated at home . It further stressed that the submitted medical certificates showed that someone had shaken X , causing him severe injuries . X ’s legal representative agreed that it would be in his best interest to remain in public care .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . Firstly , it found that there had been no flaws in ORG handling of the case which could affect the court ’s assessment . The court then noted that the applicant had contested the physicians’ conclusions and , moreover , that she had submitted a medical certificate of her own . However , the court considered that the applicant ’s reasoning in this regard was based on speculation and accusations which , in all essential parts , were unsubstantiated . It held that the medical certificate submitted by the applicant did not in any way contradict those previously submitted . Thus , nothing had emerged that would lead the court to reassess the circumstances that had led to the initial decision to take X into public care . Furthermore , the court found that the changes to the applicant ’s life ( the divorce and obtaining sole custody of X ) were not sufficient to have a decisive effect on the outcome of the proceedings . It also stressed that it was important that X continue to bond with his family home parents . Furthermore , the court took into consideration that X had been subjected to severe ill - treatment while in his GPE care and that the circumstances surrounding the incident had not been clarified . Thus , the compulsory public care order should remain in place .

The applicant appealed to ORG , maintaining her request for an opinion from ORG . The applicant also reiterated her criticism of the conclusions given in the medical certificates and , again , questioned the assumption that X suffered from “ shaken baby syndrome ” . She further maintained that ORG ’s injuries had been caused by malpractice at the hospital . The applicant also questioned the family home ’s ability to care for her son .

ORG and X ’s legal representative both contested the applicant ’s claims .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request for an opinion from ORG . The opinion was submitted to the court on DATE . It referred to a certificate by the scientific advisor ORG , a physician specialised in medical radiology , which stated , inter alia , that X ’s injuries had been caused by severe violence and that his injuries corresponded exactly to “ shaken baby syndrome ” . The injuries could not have been caused by illness or complications related to an illness nor through a minor accident such as a fall from a changing table or similar . The injuries could not have been a consequence of an injury during delivery either . Thus , ORG wholly agreed with the assessments previously made by Professor PERSON

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing where the applicant stated that she had started to question her earlier position that ORG ’s injuries had not been caused by ill - treatment in their home . Although she had not actually witnessed anyone harming X , she said that the only person , apart from herself , who could have done so was B. On DATE they had taken X to the hospital , B. had been in a bad temper . On DATE B. had taken care of X while she had been in the bathroom preparing a bath for X , and from the bathroom she had heard X cry and had gone to see what was the matter . B. had then told her to leave the room and after she had done so the baby had become quiet and PERSON had left the apartment . Just shortly after this and while undressing X , she had noticed that something was wrong with him and that he was having trouble breathing . B. had threatened her and told her that she would be expelled from GPE if she were to tell anyone what had happened . She also told the court that PERSON had often been irritated when PERSON cried and that he had had a tendency to “ explode ” . The applicant further stated that her life was stable , she spoke NORP , had an apartment and work , and she would do everything to ensure that X received the care and treatment he needed .

ORG maintained that X would be exposed to danger if he were to be left in the applicant ’s care . X ’s legal representative contested the applicant ’s claims and pointed out that , although it had not been clarified who had caused PERSON ’s injuries , it must be presumed that it was one of the parents . Although she found no reason to question that , with help , the applicant would be able to care for her son , she considered that he was in need of protection until it had been established who had caused his injuries .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment . From the outset , it noted that the primary consideration was the best interests of the child . The court then observed that X needed extensive care and great responsibility was therefore placed on the custodian in terms of understanding X ’s needs . Thus , the court considered it encouraging that the applicant had now accepted the conclusions in the medical certificate concerning X ’s state of health and the cause of his injuries . In addition , the court considered that the applicant ’s life situation had improved since the decision to take LAW into public care . Of decisive importance to the court was , however , whether ORG needs could be met by the applicant . In this context , the court noted that it had still not been clarified who had caused his injuries . The court further considered that , in the light of the applicant ’s statement before the court , her previous behaviour was difficult to understand . Although the court acknowledged the applicant ’s exposed situation at the time of QUANTITY ’s injuries , it nevertheless stressed that the conditions in the family had led to serious deficiencies in LOC care , causing him life - threatening injuries and lifelong disabilities . The court concluded that there was still a clear risk of impairment to X ’s health and development if the public care were to be terminated .

Upon further appeal by the applicant , ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE .

On DATE , in proceedings regarding custody of X between the applicant and PERSON , ORG ( tingsrätten ) repealed its provisional decision of CARDINAL DATE to grant sole custody of GPE to the applicant and decided that the parents should have joint custody . It appears that the applicant and PERSON had agreed that they needed to cooperate on questions relating to X ’s future situation .

On DATE and on DATE ORG decided that the public care should continue . As far as is known to the ORG , the applicant did not appeal against these decisions .

Following the granting of the public care order , the applicant ’s contact rights to visit X were regularly examined by the domestic authorities . During X ’s DATE in the family home , the applicant and B. visited him CARDINAL times per week . Subsequently , the applicant and B. visited him once DATE . During the visits , an interpreter and a support person were present .

On DATE , ORG decided to reduce the GPE contact rights to once DATE since the visits had had a clearly negative effect on PERSON ’s mental state . The applicant did not agree with the changes and appealed against the decision to ORG . On DATE the court dismissed the appeal . The applicant did not lodge a further appeal with the appellate courts . In DATE the contact rights were extended to TIME once every month , as X was feeling better . However , on DATE ORG decided again to reduce the GPE contact rights to TIME every month , since X had been affected negatively during and after the visits .

The applicant appealed against the decision , maintaining that she had not in any way ill - treated X and that she wanted to care for him . On CARDINAL DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the ORG ’s decision . The court observed that X had reacted negatively during the visits and held that , due to his great need of care and treatment for his disabilities , it was important for him to be in a stable and calm environment and be allowed to bond with his family home parents .

The applicant appealed to ORG which , after having held an oral hearing , rejected the appeal on DATE . The court noted that ORG intended to film the visits and subsequently , with the help of ORG ( Barn- och ungdomspsykiatrin ) , analyse the results . Having regard to this , and the observations made by ORG during the visits , the court held that the contact restrictions should remain . The applicant did not appeal against the decision to ORG .

In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant requested that X be placed in another family home since she considered that the current family home couple did not care sufficiently well for her son . She also added that she considered it to be X ’s right to be placed in a NORP family . In DATE , after having carried out an investigation , ORG rejected the request on the ground that it would not be in PERSON ’s best interest to be moved to another family home and that his needs were best met by remaining where he was . The applicant does not appear to have appealed against this decision to the administrative courts .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant would be allowed to speak NORP to X during the visits .

Following the filming of the applicant and X during TIME , in a report dated DATE , the company , which had been assigned by ORG to carry out the filming and analysing the emotional interplay between the applicant and PERSON , stated that the applicant had shown sensitivity towards X and that they had shown a genuinely good interplay . It was further noted that the applicant had the necessary abilities to support X in his future development . The report concluded that it was of great importance for X to be allowed to see his mother much more often . It was also recommended that the visits take place without the presence of the family home parents .

On DATE , the contact rights of the applicant and B. were extended to TIME once every month . It was also considered that the meetings functioned without a support person present . According to the Government , this arrangement was to remain in place until DATE and the applicant had not requested any changes to it . Moreover , a meeting between the applicant , the family home and ORG , scheduled for DATE , was cancelled upon request by both the applicant and the family home , as they had already agreed on the remaining visits for DATE . The ORG has not been informed whether any subsequent changes to the time , form or frequency of the visits have taken place .

At present the applicant is working as a kindergarten teacher .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and , at the material time , lived in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant went to the offices of ORG in Gbely with the intention of applying for asylum in GPE . From there , he was escorted to ORG in GPE , where he arrived at TIME

NORP Following questioning on DATE , that is to say on DATE , ORG decided to detain ( zaistenie ) the applicant , finding , inter alia , that he was staying in GPE without a valid travel document or any legal entitlement , and in spite of a previous decision expelling him from GPE and banning him from returning there for DATE .

NORP Under the detention order of DATE , the applicant was detained in FAC in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON súd ) received a submission dated DATE in which the applicant applied for judicial review of the order of CARDINAL DATE , challenging the assessment of the facts and the interpretation and application of the law by the police .

On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant was not present in person but was represented by his lawyer . At the conclusion of the hearing , on DATE and in the presence of the applicants’ lawyer , ORG dismissed the claim .

The written version of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was sent out on DATE and served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) , relying on LAW ( individual complaint ) and LAW ( speedy review of the lawfulness of detention ) , and complaining about the length of the proceedings in respect of his application dated DATE .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .

It observed , on the one hand , that ORG had granted the police DATE to submit observations in reply to the applicant ’s claim , which ORG held to have been disproportionately long .

However , overall , the decision - making process in respect of the applicant ’s claim had lasted DATE , and not DATE , as argued by the applicant . On that account , ORG observed that the period under consideration had not commenced until DATE when the applicant ’s submission had reached ORG – and that it ended on CARDINAL DATE , when the applicant had learned of ORG judgment through his lawyer .

The written version of ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

Meanwhile , at an unspecified time in DATE , the applicant had been expelled to GPE .

In his observations in reply to those of the Government on the admissibility and merits of the present application , the applicant informed the ORG that he had challenged the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by means of an appeal to ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to ORG for re - examination , having found that the latter had neither established all the relevant facts nor dealt properly with some of the applicant ’s material objections .

On DATE ORG ruled anew on the applicant ’s application dated DATE by quashing the order of CARDINAL DATE and remitting the matter to ORG for a new decision on the grounds that they had failed both to establish and properly to assess all the relevant facts . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP The applicant , ORG , is an NORP national . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE .

On DATE he was charged in absentia in GPE with the unlawful organisation of an extremist religious group . On DATE the ORG in GPE ordered his arrest .

DATE the applicant stayed in GPE lawfully on the basis of his registration as a migrant and a renewable work permit . During that period he did not apply for refugee status or for temporary asylum or for a temporary residence permit .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s family ( wife and CARDINAL children ) arrived from GPE to join him .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of an international search warrant . On DATE ORG of GPE informed the NORP authorities that it was intended to seek the applicant ’s extradition and requested his detention pending such extradition .

On DATE ORG of GPE remanded the applicant in custody pending extradition . On DATE the applicant was released on the orders of ORG , since under current NORP legislation his criminal prosecution had become timebarred , thus rendering extradition impossible .

It remains unclear whether the GPE authorities have submitted an official request for the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE . On DATE ORG of ORG ( the “ PERSON ” ) refused to grant his request , stating that the applicant ’s allegation that he would run the risk of ill - treatment in GPE had not been “ objectively confirmed ” .

On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that “ a person having exhausted all the instances of appeal ... and refusing voluntary departure from GPE within DATE of the date of receipt of the [ final ] decision will be administratively expelled or deported ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE ( the “ FMS of GPE ” ) against the refusal to grant refugee status . On DATE the appeal was rejected .

On DATE ORG of Ivanovo upheld the refusal to grant refugee status .

The applicant lodged an appeal , but asked the court to grant him deferral of payment of the court fee ( MONEY ( RUB ) , or MONEY ( EUR ) ) . The court deferred payment until DATE and adjourned examination of the appeal . The applicant contested this decision , asking for an extension of the deferral period . His request was dismissed and the appeal was left unexamined , since the court fees remained unpaid .

The judgment of DATE became final on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum in GPE , referring to the risk of ill - treatment in GPE . On DATE the Ivanovo Regional FMS refused his request .

On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully lodged an appeal with the ORG of GPE against the refusal .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the refusal to grant temporary asylum .

The applicant again lodged an appeal , but asked the court to grant him deferral of the payment of the court fee ( RUB CARDINAL , or approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The court deferred payment until CARDINAL DATE and adjourned examination of the appeal . The applicant contested this decision , asking for an extension of the deferral period . His request was dismissed and the appeal was left unexamined , since the court fees remained unpaid .

The judgment of DATE became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested that the ORG apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG to prevent his removal to GPE . He claimed that he could be deported to GPE at any moment since the refusals to grant refugee status and temporary asylum had become final , and an appeal against a deportation decision did not have a suspensive effect .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s request and indicated to the ORG that the applicant should not be deported or expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

NORP In order to regularise his status in GPE , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for migration registration , a work permit and a temporary residence permit .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that he was not entitled to apply for a work permit and a temporary residence permit because his stay in GPE was illegal . It also confirmed that the applicant would not be removed from GPE as long as the interim measures indicated by the ORG continued to apply .

At the same time , the Ivanovo Regional FMS informed the applicant that he could be put on the migration register for DATE in order to legalise his stay in GPE and informed him how to go about registration .

The applicant has not informed the ORG whether he has followed the migration registration procedure .

No decision on the applicant ’s expulsion or deportation has been taken so far by the NORP authorities .

A summary of the relevant domestic law , as well as information concerning the human rights situation in GPE , was provided in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


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)

Angelika Nußberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was detained in the closed section of GPE prison from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , in the remand section from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and again in the closed section from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .

On DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , shared with CARDINAL other detainees and with QUANTITY of personal space . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , alone with QUANTITY of personal space or with another detainee with QUANTITY of personal space .

The cell for CARDINAL detainees , where the applicant was held in the remand section , contained CARDINAL bunk bed , CARDINAL bigger and CARDINAL smaller table , CARDINAL chairs , CARDINAL wardrobes and CARDINAL x QUANTITY windows , which detainees could freely open or close .

As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of GPE prison , material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions , see the judgment in PERSON and PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

As to the out - of - cell time in the remand section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night , save for DATE outdoor exercise , and TIME in a recreation room ( ORG and PERSON , cited above , § MONEY ) . The ORG stated that from CARDINAL DATE on detainees could spend TIME per day outdoors .

On DATE the applicant lodged the application complaining about the prison conditions of his detention from CARDINAL DATE . In the supplement to his application of CARDINAL DATE , he complained also about the conditions of his detention from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL December CARDINAL .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was detained from DATE until DATE after a conviction . It appears that he was at first committed to a semiopen facility , FAC , and following his reclassification as a habitual offender , to a closed - type facility , FAC .

The following findings were made by the domestic courts in the course of the civil proceedings described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Neither the applicant nor the Government contested them .

For DATE of his total period of detention in FAC , the applicant was held in cells which did not conform with the statutory minimum size of QUANTITY m per person . More particularly , the applicant had QUANTITY m of personal floor space in his cells .

Initially , the toilet facilities in FAC were not separated from the living area of the cells in question . In DATE or DATE , however , construction work started and the toilets were gradually enclosed by concrete walls with a door .

All of the applicant ’s cells were well - lit , ventilated and , when necessary , heated . They were equipped with enough bunk beds for each detainee to have a separate place to sleep , as well as a table , stools and cupboards .

NORP In DATE ORG day - room was turned into cells . However , detainees continued to have access to a library and various forms of leisure and cultural activities .

It appears that in FAC the applicant had TIME of outdoor exercise per day . Initially , the applicant had CARDINAL hot shower per week . From DATE that number was increased to DATE .

The applicant was assigned a top bed . He submitted that that was contrary to medical recommendations because he had health problems ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He did not submit any documents to that effect .

The applicant submitted that for the whole of DATE he had not been able to attend DATE Mass at the remand centre .

As established by the domestic courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , at the material time , CARDINAL NORP services had been organised on DATE and CARDINAL on religious holidays . Prisoners wishing to attend had to sign up with their supervisors ( wychowawca ) . Subsequently , a list of persons approved for a particular GPE had been prepared by remand centre staff , with the help of a special computer program . The system had been designed to select prisoners on a rotation basis , according to their classification groups and in a way so as not to mix prisoners classed as dangerous detainees with those who did not require any special security measures . At times , however , individual prisoners were rejected because they did not belong to the group authorised to attend Mass on DATE .

The remand centre register showed that the applicant had been authorised to attend DATE Mass CARDINAL times , twice in DATE and twice in DATE .

The domestic courts established DATE before his detention the applicant had been admitted to hospital because of inflammation of the testicles , prostatic hyperplasia , pneumonia and an unspecified skin condition , for which he had received treatment similar to that usually prescribed for dermatitis ( zapalenie skóry ) .

During his detention in FAC , the applicant often made appointments with the in - house doctor because of colds , back ache and prostate problems . On DATE a drug called PERSON was prescribed for the applicant , in compliance with his wish . Another medicine which the applicant had previously taken for his prostate condition , PERSON , was not in the remand centre ’s stock . A generic medicine was offered to the applicant instead . Eventually , PERSON was sent to the prison by the applicant ’s relatives .

The applicant also received treatment for a scalp condition , tinea versicolor ( łupież pstry ) . In addition to that treatment , from DATE , he was entitled to an additional DATE shower . On DATE the applicant was examined by a dermatologist and his skin condition was diagnosed as seborrhoeic dermatitis ( łojotokowe zapalenie skóry ) , a chronic inflammatory scalp disorder . Consequently , the applicant ’s treatment was changed slightly . It was also established that the first symptoms of that disorder had appeared prior to the applicant ’s detention , in DATE . An expert in dermatology , appointed by the domestic court , excluded the possibility that the applicant had developed the illness because of contact with an allegedly dirty and mouldy mattress . The expert also concluded that the applicant had received the treatment which was usually prescribed in such cases by dermatologists . In DATE following diagnosis of the illness , the applicant was seen by a doctor on thirty occasions . Subsequently , throughout DATE , he made CARDINAL medical appointments .

In DATE the applicant also obtained dentures .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant lodged a number of complaints with the ORG , ORG and the relevant penitentiary court , informing them of the allegedly deplorable conditions of his detention , his inadequate medical care and of unreasonable restrictions on the practice of his religion during his detention in FAC .

On an unspecified date ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) informed the applicant that his complaints had been considered ill - founded . It was established that the applicant had received adequate medical care . In particular , the remand centre had administered PERSON and the other drug , PERSON , had been obtained with the authorities’ permission from the applicant ’s relatives . The remand facility in PERSON had not registered any overcrowding . The applicant ’s cells had been adequately furnished and there had been place for each detainee at the cell ’s communal table .

NORP In letters of CARDINAL May and DATE , the authorities informed the applicant that he had had unrestricted access to religious services in FAC , in accordance with the special schedule . Moreover , the applicant ’s placement in overcrowded cells had been in compliance with the law , namely Article CARDINAL of the Code of the Execution of Criminal Sentences .

NORP The applicant , who was represented by a lawyer , also brought a civil action for infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding , inadequate medical care and unreasonable restrictions on the practice of his religion in FAC by means of attendance of DATE GPE He claimed MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation . The domestic courts examined the claim under LAW , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) held that the applicant ’s placement in overcrowded cells for a period of CARDINAL days during his detention constituted degrading and inhuman treatment within the meaning of domestic law and the Convention .

The rest of the applicant ’s complaints were considered ill - founded .

The evidence which was obtained by the civil court , inter alia , the applicant ’s medical history , witness testimony and the report of an expert in dermatology , had disproved the applicant ’s allegations that he had contracted his skin condition in the remand centre because his mattress had been dirty and damp and that his illness had been inadequately treated .

The domestic court considered that in view of the fact that the applicant had been authorised to attend DATE Mass a total of CARDINAL times in DATE and in the light of the testimony of the prison chaplain that the applicant had been free to request attendance in DATE Mass , it could not be said that his access to religious services had been unreasonably restricted . It was also noted that detainees had been free to make individual appointments with the remand centre ’s priest . The applicant had not wished to do so at the material time .

Lastly , the applicant ’s submission that he had obtained a doctor ’s recommendation to have a bottom bunk had not been supported by any documents .

In view of the above , ORG awarded the applicant LAW ( approximately LAW ) in non - pecuniary compensation on account of the suffering caused by his detention in overcrowded cells . The domestic court also ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) towards the costs of the proceedings .

The applicant submitted a hand - written appeal against the above - mentioned judgment , dated DATE . The document does not bear any stamps but is accompanied by an official note , confirming that on DATE the applicant wished to send his appeal to ORG from FAC .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal brought by the respondent and , apparently , the applicant ’s appeal . The first - instance judgment was upheld .

An appeal by the applicant against the judgment of the appellate court was rejected as no such appeal was available under the applicable law .


NORP The list of applicants is set out in the appended table . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

NORP The applicants’ complaints under LAW concerning the excessive length of pre - trial detention were communicated to the Government . In application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant also raised another complaint under LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW .

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

NORP On various dates , the applicants were placed in pre - trial detentions on suspicion of having committed a crime . Subsequently , criminal proceedings were initiated against them . However , there is no further information in the case files about the outcome of the proceedings . The relevant details of the applications appear in the table below .


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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) gave a decision , ordering the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE . He was charged with a number of offences committed in an armed organised criminal group . At that time the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another criminal proceedings against him . The end of that prison sentence fell on DATE .

In its decision , ORG relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction . According to the domestic court , the fact that the applicant was at the relevant time serving a prison sentence did not minimise the risk of him obstructing the proceedings . Additionally , the ongoing questioning of other members of the criminal group as well as the necessity to obtain other evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody .

On DATE and DATE ORG ( PERSON ) extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . Subsequently , ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and on DATE .

In their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him . The courts considered that keeping the applicant in detention on remand was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . They emphasised the complex character of the case and the considerable number of co - accused involved who , if released , would had obstructed the proceedings . The courts noted that due to the nature of the organised criminal group , its methods of influencing and bringing pressure to bear on the other members of the group as well as witnesses , the authorities had had difficulties in collecting evidence and taking statements .

On DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug - trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand until DATE . Subsequently , the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .

In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’s detention .

Meanwhile , the court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .

The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and problems with sound system in the court room .

NORP In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL coaccused separately .

The bill of indictment was only finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the presiding judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .

NORP In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered that the applicant ’s detention on remand be lifted on condition that he paid the bail in the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) within DATE from the date of the decision .

On the same date the applicant was released on bail and police supervision . He was also prohibited from leaving the country .

ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .

Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of a judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings – because of absences of the parties .

Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending at first instance .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki DATE “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and ORG in compensation .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Before the reunification of GPE he lived in the former GPE , serving in the police force from DATE .

On DATE , the GPE ( ORG convicted the applicant of “ criminal assault against the local bodies of the ORG ” ( “ verbrecherischer ORG gegen die örtlichen GPE der Staatsmacht ” ) after he had attacked a member of the GPE parliament of the ruling ORG . He was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and served DATE in prison .

On DATE the GPE ( ORG Regional Court annulled the DATE judgment for its incompatibility with the principles of the rule of law and rehabilitated the applicant pursuant to LAW of LAW ( Gesetz über die Rehabilitierung und Entschädigung von Opfern rechtsstaatswidriger Strafverfolgungsmaßnahmen i m Beitrittsgebiet PERSON ) designed to rehabilitate and compensate prisoners of the GPE regime for deprivation of their liberty incompatible with the principles of the rule of law .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for compensation under LAW . The application form contained instructions that , according to LAW ( see Relevant domestic law and practice , CARDINAL and DATE below ) , such compensation could not be granted to a person who had offended against the principles of humanity and the rule of law . The applicant declared on the questionnaire that he had never acted in disregard of these principles and never worked for the former GPE ’s ORG ( ORG für ORG . On CARDINAL DATE the President of the GPE ( ORG Regional Court , acting as the competent authority , awarded him compensation of MONEY , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) , pursuant to LAW in conjunction with LAW § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE , after an amendment of the LAW , the applicant also applied for a special , incomerelated pension which benefits former victims of imprisonment ( monatliche besondere PERSON für PERSON ) . He again confirmed that he had never offended against the principles of humanity and the rule of law and never worked for the former GPE ’s ORG . On DATE he was granted a special DATE pension of LAW pursuant to Section CARDINALa of LAW , with the reservation that information held by the Federal Commissioner for ORG of the former GPE ( “ the Federal Commissioner ” ) must not contradict the applicant ’s statements . A respective request for information was submitted on DATE .

On DATE the Federal Commissioner informed the President of ORG that the applicant , DATE and DATE , had been a secret informant of ORG while he was a member of the police force . This information was based on a number of documents , including CARDINAL handwritten reports allegedly drafted by the applicant and a declaration to commit to serve as a secret informant to the state security service .

On DATE the President of ORG , relying on LAW and CARDINAL sentence , no . CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON für ORG ) , withdrew the decisions granting compensation and a special pension and at the same time ordered the applicant to reimburse the amounts already received pursuant to LAW . The President considered that the decisions had been unlawful from the beginning as the prerequisites for either entitlement had never been met and that the applicant could not legitimately rely on these decisions being maintained , as he had obtained them by giving information that was substantially incorrect . Referring to LAW of LAW , he observed that the applicant , contrary to the statements in his applications , had worked as a secret informant for ORG and had produced CARDINAL reports for ORG in which he put at real risk the persons on whom he had informed .

NORP On DATE the applicant applied for judicial review of that decision and asked to be heard in person . He claimed that the information contained in the documents of the Federal Commissioner was incomplete and not accurate . The fact that at the time of recruitment he was DATE and had been severely traumatised when fleeing his home town in GPE in DATE and experiencing the bombing of GPE on DATE , followed by DATE of homelessness after the war had ended , also had to be taken into account . His father had returned , incapacitated for work , from NORP captivity only in DATE or DATE . While serving in the police forces he had not been aware of working for other government agencies . The written commitment to the state security service might have been dictated to him when he was under the influence of alcohol but he had no memory of it whatsoever . In any case , he ruled out that the wording was his own and that he had known that the reports were to be used by the state security service .

On DATE the GPE ( ORG Regional Court , sitting as a chamber of CARDINAL judges , dismissed the applicant ’s request for judicial review , finding that his work as a secret informant for ORG was of such nature , scope and duration that it was reprehensible enough to justify ruling out the applicant ’s eligibility for compensation payments pursuant to LAW of LAW . Acknowledging that in a dictatorship which lasted for DATE , minor involvement with the regime was frequent , it considered that the applicant ’s position as a secret informant of the state security service did not itself suffice to trigger the application of that provision . However , compensation provided under the LAW was intended to benefit innocent victims only , but not those who had also participated in offences contrary to the principles of humanity and which were harmful to others or at least put them at risk . This could be assumed when a secret informant voluntarily reported on others and the reports could potentially cause persecution by the state security service . In that case compensation payments were ruled out , no matter how great the offender ’s own suffering had been . The courts were not to compare the extent of suffering involved .

ORG observed that the applicant had penned a handwritten commitment to serve the state security service after he had already reported twice on others . Thus the applicant ’s submission that he had believed that he was reporting to police officers and not to the state security service was , in the light of that declaration , not credible ( “ nicht glaubhaft ” ) . Furthermore , the CARDINAL reports mentioned in the decision of the President of ORG , as well as CARDINAL more reports were capable of putting in danger the persons informed on . The applicant mainly reported on their contacts with GPE and GPE . An intention to leave the former GPE without permission , in particular , could have led to severe criminal persecution of the persons involved . The reports were not meaningless but contained valuable information for the state security service . The applicant ’s claim that some reports were unknown to him and factually incorrect and that he did not recognise the names of the superior officers was irrelevant to ORG decision .

ORG also pointed out that it was unnecessary to hear the applicant in person . His personality at the time and the circumstances of his recruitment would have been relevant only if there were indications that the applicant acted under insupportable pressure . However , there were no such indications and the applicant had made no claims in this regard . He had reported twice on others , even before being recruited by the state security service . Further , the court could not see a connection between the applicant ’s experiences relating to the impact of war and the post - war period on him and his psychological strain at the time of recruitment on the one hand and his willingness to cooperate with the state security service on the other hand .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , endorsing ORG reasons .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


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

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


CASE OF GRA STIFTUNG GEGEN RASSISMUS UND ANTISEMITISMUS v. SWITZERLAND

Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant is a non - governmental organisation which promotes tolerance and condemns all types of racially motivated discrimination . It was established under NORP law and registered in GPE .

On DATE the youth wing of ORG ( PERSON ) held a demonstration in the train station square in the town of GPE concerning a public initiative to support the prohibition of the building of minarets in GPE . After the event the party published a report on its website , including the following excerpts :

“ In his speech in front of the ORG government building [ GPE ] , GPE , the president of the local branch of ORG [ “ the PERSON ” ] , emphasised that it was time to stop the expansion of ORG . With this demonstration , ORG wanted to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary time . The NORP guiding culture ( “ schweizerische NORP ” ) , based on NORP , can not allow itself to be replaced by other cultures , GPE added . A symbolic sign , such as the prohibition of minarets , would therefore be an expression of the preservation of one ’s own identity . ”

NORP In response , the applicant posted an entry on its website in the section called “ Chronology – Verbal racism ” , entitled “ PERSON , CARDINAL DATE ” , including the following extract :

“ According to the report of the event , GPE , the president of the local branch of ORG , emphasised that it was time to stop the expansion of ORG . He added further : ‘ The NORP guiding culture , based on NORP , can not allow itself to be replaced by other cultures . A symbolic sign , such as the prohibition of minarets , would therefore be an expression of the preservation of one ’s own ORG of GPE canton representative PERSON also spoke to the few people who attended ; nevertheless , ORG speaks of a great success . ( Verbal racism ) ”

On DATE the popular initiative against the construction of minarets was accepted in a referendum and a constitutional amendment banning the construction of new minarets was introduced .

On DATE PERSON filed a claim for the protection of his personality rights with ORG ( PERSON ) . He applied , firstly , to have the applicant organisation withdraw the entry in question from its homepage and , secondly , for it to be replaced with the court ’s judgment . The applicant organisation replied that the title of the Internet entry had to be considered as a value judgment , which could only lead to an infringement of personality rights if it entailed an unnecessarily hurtful and insulting attack on the person concerned .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s action . It held that the publication of the impugned article on the applicant ’s website had been justified since it had related to a political discussion on a matter of public interest .

On appeal , on CARDINAL DATE the Thurgau Cantonal High Court ( Obergericht des Kantons Thurgau ) reversed the first - instance judgment . It held that classifying GPE ’s speech as “ verbally racist ” had been a mixed value judgment , which could lead to an infringement of personality rights if it was based on untruths . ORG concluded that GPE ’s speech itself had not been racist . It therefore ordered that the impugned article be removed from the applicant ’s website and replaced with the court ’s judgment .

On DATE the applicant organisation filed an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) , reiterating its argument that any interference with GPE ’s personality rights had been justified . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s main aims was to fight racism and to inform the public about hidden and open racist behaviour . Its website stated that public comments would be documented , even if they did not fall within the scope of the prohibition of racial discrimination enshrined in LAW . To fulfil its role of watchdog in that sense , it published articles and interviews concerning current events relating to racism and antiSemitism .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant organisation ’s appeal , finding as follows ( unofficial translation ) :

“ CARDINAL . The classification of and commenting on a person ’s statements as ‘ verbal ORG violate that person ’s honour . Not only in the context of the criminal offence of racial discrimination ( LAW ) but more generally , the term in question is , in the eyes of the average reader , capable of deliberately debasing the person whose comments have been classified as ‘ verbally ORG , accusing him or her of behaviour which is frowned upon by society in the form of an act which is , at the very least , questionable in constitutional terms ( cf . LAW III CARDINAL E. CARDINALb / aa p. CARDINAL , CARDINAL III DATE p. CARDINAL and CARDINAL E. CARDINAL.CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . The appellant referred to the respondent ’s speech at the public demonstration of CARDINAL DATE on its website ... freely accessible on the Internet , commenting on the term ‘ verbal ORG . It thereby violated the respondent ’s honour as part of his personality within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The infringement is unlawful if it is not justified by the consent of the injured party , by an overriding private or public interest or by law ( LAW ) .

The main point in dispute is whether the appellant can rely on an overriding interest in classifying the respondent ’s comments as ‘ verbal ORG .

The case - law on press statements , on which the appellant relies , distinguishes between statements of facts on the one hand and value judgments on the other , and can be summarised as follows : ...

The appellant assigned the respondent ’s statements to the section entitled ‘ verbal ORG ... That was a mixed value judgment . It contains a substantive core and , at the same time , a value judgment . In order to justify the substantive core , it is necessary to examine whether the respondent ’s comments were indeed racist .

The term ‘ ORG is understood as ‘ a ORG which states that ‘ certain races or nations are superior to others in terms of their cultural GPE , and , on the other hand , a ‘ certain attitude , manner of thinking and acting towards people of ( certain ) other races or nations’ ( cf . GPE , FAC in Six Volumes , GPE . CARDINAL , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . The adjective ‘ verbal’ describes racism as ‘ [ occurring ] with words , with the help of NORP ( cf . GPE , FAC in Six Volumes , GPE . DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . Verbal racism is , therefore , no longer merely a certain attitude , but an attitude in the instant case which was expressed publicly through language ( as opposed to , for example , through deeds ) . ‘ Verbal racism’ could therefore mean racial discrimination in the criminal sense , as the respondent claims . What is decisive , however , as the second - instance court correctly stated , is that the mere demonstration of a difference between CARDINAL individuals or groups does not constitute racism . Racism begins where the difference amounts simultaneously to denigration of the victims and where the highlighting of differences is ultimately only a means to represent the victims negatively and to show disregard for their dignity .

The statements that led the appellant to conclude that there had been ‘ verbal ORG are the core phrases ‘ it is time to stop the spread of ORG ... The NORP guiding culture ( “ schweizerische NORP ” ) , based on NORP , can not let itself be repressed by other cultures ... A symbolic sign , such as the prohibition of minarets , is therefore an expression of the preservation of one ’s own identity’ .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . In his public speech , the respondent expressed his opinion on the prohibition of minarets , which , in the opinion of ORG , would not be compatible with freedom of religion and non - discrimination . He has , in that connection , compared his own beliefs ( ‘ ORG ) with foreign beliefs ( ‘ Islam’ ) , delimited them ( ‘ to halt’ , ‘ preserving one ’s own identity’ ) and described his own as worthy of protection and defence ( ‘ NORP leading ORG , ‘ not to be repressed’ ) . For the average listener , that does not result in the blanket denigration of the followers of ORG or show fundamental contempt for NORP .

On the whole , it can not be said that the comments made by the respondent , as understood by the average listener , could be described as ‘ verbally ORG . Therefore , the substantive core does not apply and the assessment is not acceptable . It shows the respondent in the wrong light . Therefore , the mixed value judgment , which infringed personality rights , can not be justified by any overriding interest within the meaning of LAW of LAW .

That assessment can not be altered by the fact that in the general interest of informing the public , there is an increased degree of publicity and a reduced level of protection for personality rights for people who engage in a political debate , such as the respondent in the campaign for the minaret initiative ( see BGE CARDINAL II CARDINAL PERSON CARDINALb p. CARDINAL , CARDINAL II CARDINAL E. CARDINALb p. CARDINAL ) . That special framework allows for the assessment of breaches of honour on a somewhat different scale , but it can neither justify the dissemination of untruths nor the publication of value judgments that do not appear to be justified with regard to the underlying facts . ”


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr F. Shiels of ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .

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

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

In DATE the applicant was a pupil at a high school in GPE ( “ the school ” ) . On DATE ORG for GPE ( “ the PPS ” ) received a police investigation file which alleged that the applicant had assaulted a teacher at the school .

In DATE and DATE teachers at the school refused to teach the applicant because of the alleged assault . On DATE the teachers went on strike . In order for the strike to be resolved , the applicant voluntarily excluded himself from school and was provided with alternative educational assistance .

The strike nonetheless generated a great deal of publicity . CARDINAL articles appeared in ORG ( CARDINAL of GPE main DATE newspapers ) on DATE .

The first article carried the headline “ Details of school ‘ ORG revealed ” and continued :

“ Details of the alleged attack which sparked the ORG strike at [ the school ] have been released exclusively to ORG ... An incident report filed with [ the school ’s ] management by the teacher who was allegedly attacked has been obtained by ORG . The staff member , who wishes to remain anonymous while negotiations continue , claimed he was shoved through the doorway of his class after being screamed and cursed at by the boy ... The pupil is understood to have suffered CARDINAL family bereavements , including the death of his brother , before the alleged attack . Internal documents show school bosses had branded the boy ‘ high risk’ , with emotional and anger management issues . Reports also reveal management had warned staff to move CARDINAL ft away from the pupil when he was in a confrontational mood . The boy was involved in a serious fight with another [ school ] pupil DATE after he was taunted about family members . He was being taught in the school ’s special needs Pupil Support Centre just before the strike . The teachers have asked for the pupil to be removed from school or taught in isolation DATE but education authorities have refused . ”

The second article , published under the headline “ Pupil involved in CARDINAL detentions ” stated :

“ The pupil at the centre of the strike row was involved in CARDINAL detentions in DATE , behaviour records obtained by ORG show .

The punishments were given between DATE and DATE for incidents from aggression directed towards teachers and other pupils to disruptive behaviour and leaving school without permission .

He was also involved in a serious fight with another pupil after he was teased about his family , confidential files say .

Union officials have insisted the pupil has problems that make him a candidate for special needs teaching .

The pupil ’s monitoring diary from his time in the segregated pupil support centre shows he was making improvements . ”

A similar article had appeared in LOC ( another DATE newspaper published in GPE ) on DATE under the headline “ Details of strike school incident revealed ” . This article also contained details from the monitoring diary , including the applicant ’s marks for behaviour and comments made by teachers .

During the strike , the media made enquiries of the police , the ORG and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) as to what action had been taken in respect of the alleged assault at the school . The ORG , through a ORG press release , informed the media that a youth had been reported to the ORG by ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) , that a decision had been issued and that there would be a first appearance on summons in DATE on a charge of assault . In response to further queries , the PPS informed the media that the youth ’s court appearance would take place on DATE .

The press release did not disclose the applicant ’s name , age or school . However , subsequent media reports connected the youth in the press release to the previous stories about the strike at the school . Although the applicant ’s name was not published , his age , the name of his school and the date of his hearing before ORG were disclosed in these reports .

NORP The applicant ’s solicitors wrote to the PPS asking it to explain its decision to issue the press release . They also invited the PPS to withdraw the summons and reissue it without informing the media that a new court date had been set .

In the absence of a reply from the ORG , the applicant issued judicial review proceedings in which he contended that the information it had disclosed to the ORG and the press constituted an unjustified interference with his rights under LAW ( see section CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , in order to have the media excluded from the trial , the applicant applied to ORG for the case to be adjourned to a date not to be announced in open court . The application was refused by GPE , who instead adjourned the hearing to DATE and ordered that CARDINAL reporters could attend it . Pursuant to LAW Order DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) the District Judge also ordered that “ no details pertaining to the identification of the applicant be published or released to the media ” .

The applicant renewed his application in writing . On DATE the District Judge decided that the case should not be adjourned to an undisclosed date but indicated that the court would hear argument as to the exclusion of the press . Those arguments were heard on DATE . ORG was represented and opposed the applicant ’s application for exclusion ; the PPS made no representations .

After hearing the parties’ arguments , the District Judge refused the application on the ground that , due to the extent of the publicity in the case , much of it from the perspective of the teacher alleged to have been assaulted , the applicant would be disadvantaged by a media ban because it would mean his version of events would not be aired .

The applicant sought judicial review of the District Judge ’s decision , relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL ) of LAW on the Rights of the Child ( see Relevant law and practice below ) .

The applications for permission to apply for judicial review against the PPS ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and against the District Judge ’s decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were heard together by ORG , sitting as a ORG . However , on DATE the applications were dismissed .

The Divisional Court accepted that LAW was engaged as the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy due first , to the statutory scheme in place under the DATE Order ; and secondly , to the personal intrusion which had arisen from the extensive nature of the media reporting of the case . In reaching this conclusion , ORG did not consider the applicant ’s complaints individually but instead had general regard to the intrusive nature of the media reports taken as a whole .

Having found that Article CARDINAL was engaged , ORG went on to consider whether the ORG had been justified in the disclosures it made and whether ORG had been justified in allowing CARDINAL members of the press into the hearing . In respect of the PPS disclosures , ORG found that it was the responsibility of the media not to publish anything that disclosed the name , address or school of a child covered by LAW and the ORG had not been under any obligation to warn the media of its responsibilities .

With regard to the attendance of the press at the hearing , ORG found that the public interest in securing open justice had outweighed the interest of the applicant in preventing reporting of the case . It added that , in the course of ORG hearing , personal material relating to the applicant might be disclosed in which there was little or no public interest . However , ORG considered that ORG would make appropriate orders preventing publication of such information .

On DATE the ORG refused to certify a point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by ORG .

The applicant ’s trial began on DATE . The applicant gave evidence in his defence and was acquitted . ORG found that he had been unlawfully detained by the teacher concerned and that the force used by the applicant on the teacher had been reasonable and proportionate .

NORP Before the trial , the applicant ’s solicitors had complained to the police about the conduct of the media and alleged that the school had breached its obligations under LAW DATE in releasing personal information about him to the media . The police advised the applicant ’s solicitor that the complaint about the release of personal information to the media would be forwarded to Information Commissioner as that aspect of the complaint was not a matter which they could investigate . The police took a statement from the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the ORG wrote to the applicant ’s solicitor to confirm that a report has been submitted to the PPS and its advice and direction were awaited . On DATE the ORG notified the applicant ’s solicitor that the PPS had advised that the offence in question was a summary only offence and , as such , had become statute barred DATE after the date it was committed . No prosecution could therefore be brought .

The ORG did not forward the applicant ’s complaint to the Information Commissioner and the applicant therefore complained directly to the Commissioner on DATE . The outcome of this complaint is unknown .

In addition , by letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the school about the release of confidential information to the media . The school replied on DATE , indicating that it had not released any personal or confidential information to the media , except where authorised by the applicant to do so .

Article CARDINAL of the above Order provides as follows :

“ Restrictions on reporting proceedings

( CARDINAL ) Where a child is concerned in any criminal proceedings ( other than proceedings to which paragraph ( CARDINAL ) applies ) the court may direct that -

( a ) no report shall be published which reveals the name , address or school of the child or includes any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child ; and

( b ) no picture shall be published as being or including a picture of the child ,

except in so far ( if at all ) as may be permitted by the direction of the court .

( CARDINAL ) Where a child is concerned in any proceedings in a youth court or on appeal from a youth court ( including proceedings by way of case stated ) -

( b ) no picture shall be published as being or including a picture of any child so concerned ,

except where the court or the Secretary of ORG , if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so , makes an order dispensing with these prohibitions to such extent as may be specified in the order .

( CARDINAL ) A court shall not exercise its power under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) without -

( a ) affording the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to make representations ; and

( b ) taking into account any representations which are duly made .

( CARDINAL ) If a report or picture is published in contravention of a direction under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) or of paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , the following persons -

( a ) in the case of publication of a written report or a picture as part of a newspaper , any proprietor , editor or publisher of the newspaper ;

( b ) in the case of the inclusion of a report or picture in a programme service , any body corporate which provides the service and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper ,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level CARDINAL on the standard scale ...

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this LAW a child is ‘ concerned’ in any proceedings whether as being the person by or against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken or as being a witness in the proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) In this Article -

‘ publish’ includes -

... ( b ) cause to be published ... ”

The relevant ORG principles are set out in LAW :

“ CARDINAL The data protection principles

( CARDINAL ) Subject to section ORG ) , it shall be the duty of a data controller to comply with the data protection principles in relation to all personal data with respect to which he is the data controller . ”

and in DATE and QUANTITY of Schedule CARDINAL of the Act :

“ CARDINAL . Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and , in particular , shall not be processed unless —

( a ) CARDINAL of the conditions in Schedule CARDINAL is met , and

( b ) in the case of sensitive personal data , CARDINAL of the conditions in Schedule CARDINAL is also met .

Personal data shall be obtained only for CARDINAL or more specified and lawful purposes , and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes . ”

Schedule CARDINAL provides that in the case of sensitive personal data , the processing must be necessary for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the data controller in connection with employment . Pursuant to section CARDINAL , “ sensitive personal data ” includes information as to “ any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by [ the data subject ] , the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings ” .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the award of compensation for damage caused by a contravention of the LAW :

“ CARDINAL Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements

( CARDINAL ) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this LAW is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage .

( CARDINAL ) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this LAW is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—

( a ) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention , or

( b ) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes .

( CARDINAL ) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned . ”

Moreover , CARDINAL of the roles of the ORG Commissioner ’s office is to uphold information rights in the public interest . The Commissioner can rule on eligible complaints and take appropriate action when the law is broken . In particular , section CARDINAL of the Act permits the Information Commissioner to issue an enforcement notice where a data controller has contravened the Act :

“ CARDINAL Enforcement notices

( CARDINAL ) If the Commissioner is satisfied that a data controller has contravened or is contravening any of the data protection principles , the Commissioner may serve him with a notice ( in this LAW referred to as “ an enforcement notice ” ) requiring him , for complying with the principle or principles in question , to do either or both of the following —

( a ) to take within such time as may be specified in the notice , or to refrain from taking after such time as may be so specified , such steps as are so specified , or

( b ) to refrain from processing any personal data , or any personal data of a description specified in the notice , or to refrain from processing them for a purpose so specified or in a manner so specified , after such time as may be so specified . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that

“ A person who claims that a public authority has acted ( or proposed to act ) in a way which is made unlawful by section DATE ) may

( a ) bring proceedings against the authority under LAW in the appropriate court or tribunal , or

( b ) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings ,

but only if he is ( or would be ) a victim of the unlawful act . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW on the Rights of the PERSON provides :

“ CARDINAL . GPE Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as , accused of , or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child ’s sense of dignity and worth , which reinforces the child ’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child ’s age and the desirability of promoting the reintegration and the child ’s assuming a constructive role in society .

To this end ... the GPE Parties shall , in particular , ensure that :

( b ) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees :

( vii . ) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings . ”


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE an official representing ORG informed the ORG police authorities in writing that a private person – the applicant – was selling unlicensed pharmaceutical products via the internet . The products were advertised as medicines for the treatment of HIV , hepatitis C and cancer .

The official mentioned that ORG ( Organizētās noziedzības apkarošanas pārvalde ) had established the applicant ’s address , but that it had declined to launch an investigation on the grounds that a sample of the product sold by the applicant did not contain narcotic or other dangerous substances . Other departments of the ORG police had similarly refused to investigate the case .

An undercover investigation was carried out and on DATE police officers responsible for investigating economic crime made a test purchase . They contacted the applicant via the email address indicated on the website that was advertising the pharmaceuticals products , and met him at a pizzeria near his home . After having bought a pack of QUANTITY of CARDINAL of the products for CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , the police officers informed the applicant about the test purchase which had been carried out .

A record of the operation ( pārbaudes akts ) , dated DATE and signed by CARDINAL police officers and the applicant , stated , inter alia :

“ given that company ORG elektronikas izstrādes has been registered at [ the applicant ’s ] address , and that the applicant himself lives at that address , [ the applicant ] voluntarily agreed that the apartment be subjected to an inspection ( apskate ) and to show the tools used to fabricate the medicaments . ”

NORP Immediately after the test purchase , the same police officers carried out an inspection at the applicant ’s apartment . Later , QUANTITY police officers from the organised crime department , an expert and officers from the police press centre arrived .

During the inspection , the applicant explained that he was director of the company “ ORG elektronikas izstrādes ” and that the company was not connected with the production of medicines . He had been producing alleged medicines at home since DATE , when several pharmaceutical companies in GPE had refused to cooperate with him in the production of medical products for the treatment of HIV and hepatitis C. He alleged that he had sold CARDINAL packs of the alleged medicines . He admitted to being aware that the sale of medicines required a licence , but claimed that he did not have the means to obtain such a patent .

As a result of the inspection , which lasted TIME , a computer , a computer hard drive and items used in the production of the medicines ( chemical substances , spare bottles and labels ) were seized from the applicant ’s apartment . The inspection was video - recorded and photographs were taken ; the seized items were packed and sealed . The inspection record of DATE listed everything which the police officers had observed during the inspection at the applicant ’s CARDINAL - room apartment , including the composition of the apartment , and detailed content of shelves and boxes , and of the fridge .

The above inspection record was written on a standard form with a pre - typed text according to which the inspection had been carried out under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

A subsequent forensic examination concluded that there were no signs of narcotic or psychotropic substances in the seized items . The expert report concluded that the computer contained a massive volume of information , including on the production and distribution of the alleged medicines , as well as email correspondence , including communication with potential clients .

As a result , the police authorities instituted CARDINAL sets of administrative offence proceedings under LAW on unlicensed business operations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and on the sale of unlicensed pharmaceutical products ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first set of proceedings was remitted for examination by ORG ( NORP ieņēmumu dienests – “ the ORG ” ) , whereas the latter was remitted to ORG ( NORP farmācijas inspekcija ) .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant submitted various complaints to the ORG police authorities concerning the events of DATE . An internal inquiry by ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON drošības birojs ) was completed on CARDINAL DATE . It concluded that there had been no violations of law in the conduct of the police officers who had carried out the test purchase and the subsequent inspection of the applicant ’s apartment .

In addition , ORG of ORG refused to initiate criminal proceedings following a complaint lodged by the applicant about the theft by the police officers of weights from his apartment on DATE ( decision adopted on DATE ) , the alleged unauthorised conduct of investigative activities and false testimonies given by CARDINAL of the police officers present during the inspection ( decision adopted on DATE ) .

Contrary to what was indicated in the decisions adopted by ORG of ORG , the applicant did not appeal against those decisions to a higher official within the ORG police hierarchy . Instead , he submitted a new complaint to ORG . The complaint was dismissed by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , following the internal inquiry , the Pre - trial ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas GPE pārvaldes GPE izmeklēšanas pārvade ) dismissed the allegations that the police officers had carried out a search of the applicant ’s apartment on DATE . They concluded that the police officers had verified the facts about the alleged sale of pharmaceutical products . After the test purchase and with the permission of the applicant , they had inspected the legal address of the company “ ORG elektronikas izstrādes ” and had taken items in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police , which authorised the examination of LOC of legal entities ( see Relevant domestic law section ) .

The decision further stated that on arriving at the address of the company registered at the applicant ’s apartment , the police officers had had no intention of drawing up an administrative offence record . The latter had been drawn up only after the examination of all the evidence seized during the inspection . According to the decision , the police officers had not carried out a search because all the seized items were easily visible and accessible . Therefore LAW could not have been violated .

The decision also stated that the applicant himself had not taken back the computer . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .

On various occasions the applicant complained to various branches of ORG , alleging that the “ search ” of his apartment on DATE had been unlawful . He also requested that the seized items be returned to him .

According to information submitted by ORG , DATE the applicant complained to ORG on CARDINAL occasions in relation to the events of DATE , out of which the ORG examined CARDINAL complaints . It appears that most of the complaints were related to various aspects of the administrative offence or criminal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE a prosecutor in charge of investigating financial end economic crimes replied to the applicant that the inspection of the applicant ’s apartment , which was also the registered address of company “ ORG elektronikas izstrādes ” , had been carried out “ in accordance with the law ” , and that the items from the apartment had been seized , recorded and filmed in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The prosecutor ’s reply was amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that , inter alia , items from his apartment had been seized “ without judicial authorisation ” .

On DATE the applicant was offered to receive back a computer hard drive seized in DATE . The computer was added to the materials of the criminal case .

On DATE a supervising prosecutor ordered an internal inquiry into the conduct of the police officers at the applicant ’s apartment and the seizure of items there on DATE . The prosecutor noted that the police had had no legal grounds on which to carry out an inspection of the applicant ’s apartment , in that LAW did not provide for such a measure . The prosecutor also noted that the police officers had breached various procedural rules , notably Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

On DATE a prosecutor from ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the conduct of the police officers . The decision stated that the police officers had carried out the investigative measure – an inspection of the applicant ’s apartment – on the basis of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . Having concluded that there were no grounds to institute criminal proceedings , the police officers drew up an administrative offence record . ORG recognised that the police officers should have remitted the administrative offence files to the court for adjudication , rather than to the ORG . However , that omission had later been rectified by a supervising prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decision stated that in any event , the statutory deadline for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the police officers had expired .

By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE a supervising prosecutor from ORG upheld the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings with regard to the conduct of the police officers on DATE . The decision stated that the police officers had conducted an inspection and seizure at the applicant ’s apartment pursuant to sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police .

Meanwhile , in DATE and again in DATE the applicant claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage from ORG on the basis of the alleged unlawful activities of police officers on DATE . On DATE the claim was dismissed and the applicant was informed that it was open to him to institute civil damages proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE the same prosecutor dismissed the applicant ’s claim for damages with respect to the seized items . The applicant appears to have appealed against that decision to the administrative courts . ORG has no further information on the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG held the applicant liable for committing the administrative offence of unlicensed business activities – manufacturing of pharmaceutical products . He was fined ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) and the items he had used in manufacturing the pharmaceutical products were confiscated . On DATE the items were destroyed .

The applicant appealed against the decision to the administrative courts and to ORG .

On DATE ORG established that the impugned actions of the applicant had amounted to a criminal offence under LAW of LAW , and therefore instituted criminal proceedings . On the basis of the prosecutor ’s instruction , on DATE the ORG revoked their decision to hold the applicant liable for an administrative offence .

Following the pre - trial investigation in the criminal case , in which the applicant was questioned as a witness , on DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated owing to lack of evidence that a criminal offence had been committed , and the materials , including the items seized from the applicant ’s apartment , were remitted to the ORG for the initiation of administrative offence proceedings .

Subsequently , on DATE the ORG adopted in substance an identical decision to that adopted after the first attempt to institute administrative offence proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant appealed against the decision to the ORG and later to the administrative courts , seeking revocation of the allegedly unlawful decision . Among other things , the applicant complained that an unlawful search and seizure had been carried out at his home on DATE . He claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL ) , and later increased the claim to CARDINAL lati .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that , within the powers vested in the State police under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police , in DATE police officers had inspected the applicant ’s apartment in the course of criminal proceedings . Therefore the activities carried out prior to the institution of the administrative offence proceedings fell outside the administrative courts’ competence . The court nevertheless analysed the information concerning the alleged unlawful conduct of the police officers and concluded that there were no grounds to question the legality of the police ORG conduct .

The applicant submitted a further appeal in which he argued , inter alia , that the evidence had been obtained unlawfully and therefore it could not be admitted in the administrative offence proceedings .

On DATE , by a final decision , ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision . At the same time it varied the lower court ’s finding that the police officers had carried out the contested measure as part of criminal proceedings . The appellate court relied on the outcome of the police internal inquiry into the lawfulness of the police officers entering the applicant ’s apartment and seizing evidence . The court noted that the police officers had acted pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which vested police officers with powers to inspect company LOC , and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , which provided that police officers had a duty to prevent and terminate administrative offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a consequence , the appellate court did not find that any of the evidence had been obtained unlawfully .

On the merits , ORG established that the applicant had carried out an unlicensed business activity , i.e. the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products , with an aim of receiving income . The court came to this conclusion by analysing the applicant ’s activities , such as him setting up a web site , communication with potential clients via emails and setting a price . Accordingly , it was concluded that the applicant was rightly fined . It was also noted that the fine was the lowest possible for an individual person .

On DATE ORG fined the applicant under LAW , second paragraph , of LAW in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) for selling unauthorised pharmaceutical products ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decision was upheld at CARDINAL levels of the administrative jurisdiction and came into force in DATE .