George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

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

NORP The present case concerns CARDINAL control orders which were made against the applicant under the now repealed LAW DATE ( “ the PTA DATE ” ) . The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG ( made a control order ( ORG DATE ) against the applicant , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the PTA DATE , on the grounds that the Secretary of ORG had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant was or had been involved in terrorism - related activity and considered it necessary , for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism , to make such a control order . The control order was served on the applicant on DATE . It required him to remain in his home for TIME ( “ the curfew period ” ) and contained the following additional restrictions :

- to wear at all times an electronic monitoring tag ;

- to report by telephone to a monitoring company to ensure the curfew period was observed ;

- to remain within a marked area in GPE ;

- to allow police offices and other authorised persons to enter and search his flat ;

- not to allow visitors ( other than his father , his legal representative and members of the emergency services ) to his flat except with prior authorisation of ORG and , in respect of such a visitor , to supply the name , address , date of birth and photographic identity of the individual to ORG ;

- to attend CARDINAL designated mosque and , while there , not to lead prayers , give lectures or provide any religious advice ;

- a prohibition on all communication equipment ( including access to the internet ) in the flat save for CARDINAL fixed telephone line ;

- a prohibition on the use of mobile phone ( including allowing someone to use one in the flat ) ;

- to surrender his passport and any other travel documents ;

- to inform ORG of any departure from GPE and of any intended return ;

- a prohibition on entering any airport , port or international railway station ;

- various financial restrictions including , inter alia , on owning CARDINAL bank account and on international money transfers without ORG consent ;

- to provide ORG with details of any employment or change of employment ;

- not to associate with anyone else subject to a control order ; and

- not to associate or communicate , directly or indirectly , at any time or in any way with an individual named in the control order .

NORP In DATE the Secretary of ORG served on the applicant a ORG statement setting out the public or “ open ” reasons for the control order and the justifications for the various obligations imposed under it . The ORG statement alleged that the applicant had links with extremist individuals in GPE affiliated to ORG . No further information was given concerning these allegations , nor was any of the evidence supporting them communicated to the applicant .

On DATE , following the decision of ORG in another control order case , Secretary of ORG for ORG ORG and Others [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL , the control order was revoked by the Secretary of ORG . The Secretary of ORG then made a second control order ( control order ORG ) against the applicant . Under this control order , the curfew period was TIME . The other restrictions were similar to those set out in the first control order , save that the applicant was now prohibited from associating with a further CARDINAL individuals who were said to be associated with ORG .

In DATE control order ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL was reviewed by ORG ( PERSON ) at a hearing under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of DATE . The Secretary of ORG disclosed ( “ open ” ) evidence in support of his assessment that the applicant was or had been engaged in terrorism related activity and that the control order was necessary . None of the statements or evidence produced by the Secretary of ORG disclosed any specific allegations of wrongdoing against the applicant . CARDINAL special advocates were appointed to represent the applicant at the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) hearing . The applicant met with CARDINAL special advocate once on DATE . He maintained that he was unable to give the special advocate any meaningful instructions of any kind .

PERSON handed down his judgment on DATE . This consisted of an open judgment and a closed judgment . PERSON found that the material disclosed to the applicant did not show reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had been or was involved in terrorism - related activity ; it was clear , however , that the material which had been disclosed to the court and to the special advocates showed more than reasonable grounds for that suspicion . He nonetheless found that the control order had to be quashed because , taken cumulatively , the restrictions in it amounted to a deprivation of liberty and thus violated LAW .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG made a third control order against the applicant , ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL . This Order was served on the applicant on DATE . It reduced the curfew period to TIME per day from DATE ( from TIME ) . The geographical area to which the applicant was restricted in TIME of each day was enlarged to include a part of GPE city centre , he was permitted to receive CARDINAL visitor at his home DATE without prior approval from ORG and he was granted permission to attend CARDINAL different mosques . The materials served on the applicant in relation to control order ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL contain no further indication as to the case against him .

PERSON gave leave to appeal directly to ORG against his judgment of DATE . The appeal was heard by ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , at the same time as CARDINAL other control order cases . Judgment in all the cases was given on DATE ( Secretary of ORG for ORG v. E and another [ DATE ] ORG DATE ) . The majority of ORG ( Lord PERSON , Lord PERSON and ORG ) held that , considered cumulatively , the restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty and had to be quashed , although Lord PERSON specified that a control order which confined the individual to his home for TIME or less , regardless of the severity of the other restrictions , would not amount to a deprivation of liberty . Lords PERSON and ORG dissented . A majority of their ORG , PERSON and PERSON ) therefore held that a control order which confined a person to a residence for TIME per day or less , even when coupled with other restrictions , did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under LAW . Their Lordships were unanimous in their view that the criminal limb of Article CARDINAL did not apply to control order proceedings , since the proceedings involved an assertion that a person was suspected of criminal activity , not that he was guilty of it . A majority ( Lords Bingham , PERSON and ORG , and ORG ) nonetheless held that , under the civil limb of DATE , if it were necessary to disclose material to a controlled person in order to afford them a fair hearing , then either disclosure had to be made or the material could not be relied upon . They further held that the use and contribution of the special advocates in the applicant ’s case could have been sufficient to afford him a fair hearing notwithstanding that none of the allegations and evidence relied upon against him was disclosed to him . In light of their conclusions , ORG reversed PERSON decision to quash control order ORG . Beyond their general observations on LAW , their Lordships made no specific finding as to whether LAW CARDINAL had been breached in the applicant ’s particular case and instead remitted this issue back to ORG for its consideration .

On DATE , following the ORG of Lords’ judgment , the Secretary of ORG modified ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL . That modification increased the period that the applicant was confined to his residence to TIME a day ( from TIME , later modified to TIME ) . The further restrictions set out in the control order continued in force . The Secretary of ORG introduced a further obligation prohibiting the applicant from attending pre - arranged meetings outside his residence , other than for health , educational or employment purposes and at a mosque .

The present application was lodged on DATE . When it was lodged , the hearing concerning ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL was pending before ORG . The proceedings concerning ORG ( which had been remitted to ORG by ORG for consideration of the LAW issue in the case ) were also heard in ORG before PERSON PERSON In judgments given on DATE and DATE he found that , given the lack of disclosure of both the allegations against applicant and the evidence supporting them , the proceedings concerning ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not comply with LAW . He further found that that conclusion would apply to the pending proceedings concerning ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

NORP The Secretary of ORG appealed against those findings to ORG , which , on DATE and by a majority of CARDINAL to one , allowed the appeal . The majority found that there was no absolute rule that Article CARDINAL required the gist or essence of the allegations and evidence to be disclosed to the person subjected to a control order ( ORG and others v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) . The applicant and CARDINAL other controlled persons whose cases had been heard by ORG were given leave to appeal to ORG .

On DATE , their ORG unanimously allowed the appeal ( ORG and others v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] UKHL CARDINAL ) . They found that , in light of this ORG ’s judgment in GPE and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG DATE , there was an absolute rule that Article CARDINAL required that a controlee be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions in relation to those allegations . Provided that this requirement was satisfied there could be a fair trial notwithstanding that the controlee was not provided with the detail or the sources of the evidence forming the basis of the allegations . Where , however , the open material consisted purely of general assertions and the case against the controlee was based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials the requirements of a fair trial would not be satisfied , however cogent the case based on the closed materials might be .

On DATE the applicant wrote to this ORG seeking leave to amend the application in the light of the ORG of Lords’ judgment . On DATE he was informed that , on DATE , the President of the ORG to which the case had been allocated had decided that , since the case would be remitted to the lower courts for further consideration , it was appropriate to adjourn the ORG ’s own consideration of the application .

As a result of ORG judgment , the Secretary of ORG decided not to make the required disclosure to the applicant and instead to revoke control order ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) handed down another judgment finding , inter alia , that : ( i ) the control order against the applicant had to be regarded as having been revoked ( or quashed ) ab initio ; and ( ii ) the disclosure requirements identified by ORG applied to a claim for damages arising out of the imposition of a control order . The Secretary of ORG ’s appeal against ORG judgment was dismissed by ORG on DATE ( AN v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) .

The applicant issued legal proceedings against the Secretary of ORG on DATE , claiming damages for the time he had spent under the control orders . In DATE the claim was dismissed , pursuant to a consent order agreed between the parties . The schedule to the consent order provided that the applicant would accept the sum of damages offered by the Government :

“ in full and final settlement of the entirety of his claim herein and any other claims which he might have in relation to the control orders listed below that he was subject to DATE and DATE :

i. PTACARDINAL/CARDINAL

ii . PTACARDINAL/CARDINAL

iii . PTACARDINAL/CARDINAL

iv . PTACARDINAL/CARDINAL

v. PTACARDINAL/CARDINAL ... ” .


No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant , who was a professor of political science at ORG , had stood for the parliamentary elections of DATE , in the second electoral district of GPE , as an independent candidate . He had not been a member of any political party at the material time .

With a view to a deeper understanding of the background to the present applications , the ORG considers it useful to outline the circumstances under which the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE took place . Accordingly it will refer to the relevant passages of GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) , which read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In DATE ORG decided to hold early parliamentary elections , choosing CARDINAL DATE as the date . The decision followed a political crisis resulting from ORG ’s inability to elect a new President of the Republic to follow on from PERSON before the expiry of his single DATE term of office , on CARDINAL DATE . In the normal course of events , these elections should have been held on DATE .

CARDINAL political parties took part in the elections , which were marked by CARDINAL characteristics . Firstly , a strong mobilisation of the electorate was observed following the presidential crisis , since the participation rate rose to PERCENT . Secondly , political parties used CARDINAL pre - electoral strategies to circumvent the national PERCENT threshold . ORG ) took part in the poll under the banner of the ORG , a rival party , and by that means managed to win CARDINAL seats . ORG , pro - NORP , left - leaning ) presented its candidates as independents using the slogan ‘ A CARDINAL hopes’ ; it also supported certain left - wing NORP candidates . This movement was backed by other small left - wing groups such as the LAW , the ORG and the ORG ( the ORG and ORG , socialist ) . CARDINAL independent candidates stood for election in CARDINAL provincial constituencies .

In the elections the ORG , the ORG and the ORG managed to get over the PERCENT threshold . With PERCENT of the votes cast , the ORG won CARDINAL seats , PERCENT of the total . The ORG , with PERCENT of the votes , won CARDINAL seats , PERCENT of the total ; however , the CARDINAL MPs mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above subsequently resigned from the ORG and went back to the ORG , their original party . The ORG , which polled PERCENT of the votes , won seventyone seats , or PERCENT of the total .

The strong showing by independent candidates was one of the main features of the elections of CARDINAL DATE . There were none in ORG in DATE but DATE saw them return , when there were CARDINAL . In DATE CARDINAL independent MPs were elected from a national total of CARDINAL independent candidates . In the elections of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL independent MPs were elected . In particular , CARDINAL GPE candidates were elected , after obtaining PERCENT of the votes cast , and joined the ORG after the elections . The ORG , which had CARDINAL MPs , the minimum number to be able to form a parliamentary group , was thus able to do so . The independents also included a socialist MP ( the former president of the ORG ) , a nationalist MP ( the former president of ORG , nationalist ) and a centrist MP ( the former president of ANAP ) .

A government was formed by the ORG , which again secured an absolute majority in ORG . ”

In accordance with LAW a ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL as amended under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March CARDINAL , electors were able to vote in polling stations set up at customs posts for political parties but not for independent candidates , who included the applicant .

In a Decree of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) stated that it had chosen DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively as the dates for the beginning and end of the parliamentary elections in the polling stations set up at customs posts for nationals who had been resident abroad for DATE . In the ORG explained that the nationals in question could only vote in those polling stations for political parties .

On DATE , with reference to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant lodged with ORG a request for the annulment of LAW DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request , on the basis of LAW a ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL . It pointed out that this provision could only be modified by a fresh legislative amendment .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL on Elections allowed political parties participating in elections to transmit election broadcasts on national radio and television ( TRT ) , subject to certain restrictions , particularly in terms of airtime .

ORG oversaw the implementation of the PERSON , which laid down sanctions for infringements of the provisions on election broadcasts .

Election broadcasts were authorised from DATE , that is to say during DATE before the elections .

According to the applicant , the PERSON did not allow independent candidates like himself who did not , as a matter of principle , belong to any political party , to electioneer on the national radio and television , or , for that matter , on the private channels .

The applicant stressed that CARDINAL peculiarity of the CARDINAL DATE elections had been the large number of independent candidates standing . He considered that this unprecedented phenomenon had stemmed , firstly , from the PERCENT electoral threshold imposed during the parliamentary elections , and secondly , from the dissatisfaction felt by most people at the material time with the performance of the political parties , whether in power or in opposition .


Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

s , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE around TIME a group of persons started blocking the crossing of a federal road with a county road in PERSON in order to protest against the forthcoming transport of “ castor ” containers to PERSON . A total of CARDINAL tractors and CARDINAL cars blocked the crossing , preventing CARDINAL lorry drivers from continuing their journey .

The first applicant , deputy mayor of PERSON and member of the LAW county council , as well as the second applicant and her husband were caught in the traffic jam caused by the blockade on the federal road in their cars .

NORP The police present at the crossroads allowed the applicants , who had parked and left their cars , to join the persons blocking the crossroads . In the first applicant ’s submission , he intended to inform himself on the event and to mediate , if necessary , in his capacity as an elected local politician . The second applicant wished to inform herself of the reasons for the blockade . Subsequently , more police forces arrived at the crossing .

At TIME the GPE police contained the CARDINAL persons present on and around the crossroads , including the applicants , in a police cordon . They informed the persons concerned at TIME that they were suspected of having committed an offence in view of the fact that they had been blocking the federal road for a considerable time , thereby preventing other vehicles from continuing their journey . They declared the assembly dissolved and announced that the police would establish the identity of all persons involved at a checkpoint . They further asked persons who did not feel well , children and women to process to the identity check first in order to be able to leave the cordon rapidly . The first applicant subsequently attempted in vain to leave the cordon at a different place by presenting his identity papers only .

Following the establishment of their identities , CARDINAL persons had left the cordon by TIME , CARDINAL persons by TIME , another CARDINAL persons by TIME and CARDINAL persons by TIME At TIME the police ordered a toilet van for the remaining QUANTITY .

Around TIME ( in the second applicant ’s submission ) or TIME ( according to the police photo in the file ) the second applicant left the cordon after her identity had been recorded .

On TIME the police started pushing the remaining persons , including the first applicant , towards the identity checkpoint . At TIME of the following day ( DATE ) , the QUANTITY persons remaining within the cordon , including the first applicant , were escorted by the police to the checkpoint . The first applicant left the cordon at TIME after his identity had been recorded . All persons had left the cordon by TIME following the establishment of their identities .

The identities of the persons cordoned off by the police were established , in principle , in the following manner . They filmed the persons concerned with a video camera when they presented their identity cards . The personal data of those persons were read out by a police officer at the same time . In contrast , the second applicant gave her identity herself and CARDINAL photographs were made of her in addition to the video recording as she had left her identity card in her car .

Following their release from the cordon , it took the applicants TIME to reach their cars which were parked on the opposite side of the crossroads because the police kept blocking the crossroads , which was surrounded by a forest difficult to traverse on TIME .

On DATE the first applicant and on DATE CARDINAL the second applicant , both represented by counsel , requested ORG , in an action against the GPE police , to declare , in particular , that their deprivation of liberty and the manner in which personal data had been taken for the police records on DATE had been unlawful .

On DATE ORG ( civil section ) transferred the cases brought by the applicants to the investigating judge responsible for the review of measures under LAW . It argued that the applicants had not been deprived of their liberty for preventive purposes under LAW and Order . The police had in fact detained them on the basis of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( criminal section ) found that the establishment of the first applicant ’s identity under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the taking of pictures of the first applicant for the police record under Article PERSON , first alternative , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been lawful .

On DATE the ORG ( criminal section ) made the same finding in respect of the second applicant .

In their decisions , phrased in almost identical terms , ORG found that the police had contained the persons participating in the blockade of the crossroads in a police cordon in order to establish their identities and to take pictures and in order to seize the vehicles involved . They considered that there had been at least sufficient factual elements for concluding that the persons concerned were guilty of joint coercion ( Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By parking their vehicles on the crossroads and by their presence thereon , the CARDINAL persons involved created , at least by the ensuing traffic jam , a physical barrier preventing cars from continuing their journey for a considerable time , which , having regard to the criminal courts’ case - law , amounted to force within the meaning of LAW . ORG further found that , having regard to the duration of the blockade of TIME and its effects for third persons , in particular CARDINAL lorry drivers who partly had to deliver goods within a deadline , the blockade was also reprehensible for the purposes of LAW and not covered by the right to freedom of assembly or the right to freedom of expression .

ORG considered that in view of the suspicion that a joint coercion had been committed , the police had been obliged under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW to establish the identity of all persons present on the crossroads , including that of the applicants . Having regard to the number of persons involved , this measure naturally took a certain amount of time .

Likewise , the taking of video pictures of the persons concerned under Article ORG , first alternative , of LAW was necessary to conduct the investigation proceedings . In order to establish the acts committed by individual perpetrators , their presence and the clothing at the time of the act had to be recorded .

In the District Courts’ view , the impugned measures taken by the police were not disproportionate . Even without the police cordon , there would have been inconveniences as a result of the lack of toilets , the weather and the lack of food at the crossroads , the blocking of which was to be upheld for a considerable period of time .

On DATE the first applicant and on DATE the second applicant lodged appeals against the District Courts’ decisions . They argued , in particular , that it had been arbitrary to treat them as suspects , given that they had been caught in the traffic jam caused by the blockade themselves and had only wanted to inform themselves of the cause for the traffic jam . ORG had insufficiently established the relevant facts and had failed , in particular , to hear them in person .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded .

As to the lawfulness of the first applicant ’s detention by the police , ORG clarified that the deprivation of liberty had been based on LAW , second sentence , of LAW . That provision authorised holding back a person suspected of a criminal offence if that person ’s identity could not be established in a different way or if that establishment would be possible only with considerable difficulty . The first applicant had been present within a group of persons having blocked a crossing with the help of tractors causing a considerable traffic jam . Even taking into account the cause for the blockade , namely to demonstrate against the forthcoming transport of castor containers , this blockade , having regard to ORG case - law , could constitute coercion . It had been necessary to contain the CARDINAL suspects in a police cordon in order to take the identity of all of them .

ORG further considered that the first applicant ’s deprivation of liberty had been proportionate . The police had enabled persons who did not feel well and minors to leave the cordon speedily . They further speeded up the establishment of the ORG identities by recording the reading out of the personal data on video instead of writing the data down . If the first applicant had lacked food and had been cold , he could have asked for a speedy establishment of his identity . However , it appeared that the first applicant had been part of a group of CARDINAL persons who had refused to go to the checkpoint to have their identities established and he had thus caused delays in the establishment of his identity himself . In so far as it had not been possible for the first applicant to regain his car after his release for a considerable time , this had been caused by the partly ongoing blockade of the crossing and did not entail a deprivation of liberty imputable to the police .

ORG further found that the taking of the first applicant ’s identity via video recording had been lawful under Article PERSON , first alternative , of LAW . It had not been arbitrary to consider the first applicant , who was within the group of persons blocking the crossroads , as a suspect of a joint coercion . Filming the persons concerned had also been proportionate . It had been necessary to document the clothing worn by the suspects in order to enable witnesses to recognise the perpetrators of an offence having caused prejudice to a considerable number of drivers at a later stage .

ORG considered that it had not been required by LAW for ORG to hear the first applicant in person in the present proceedings . ORG had sufficiently established the relevant facts , having regard also to the file on the criminal investigations against the first applicant and the documentation of the video recording made by the police .

On DATE and on DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s complaints about a breach of his right to be heard . It stressed that the first applicant had had full access to the case - files , which included the police reports and pictures of the first applicant drawn from the video recordings . He had therefore been in a position to explain his view comprehensively in writing .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons of ORG , equally dismissed the second applicant ’s appeal . It stressed that the second applicant ’s counsel had had access to the complete case - file . It had not been necessary to hear the second applicant in person as the lawfulness of the impugned measures could be determined irrespective of a personal impression of her .

On DATE the ORG equally dismissed the second applicant ’s objection and complaint about a breach of her right to be heard .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained , in particular , that his detention in the police cordon on DATE , which he had only been able to leave under the condition that he had himself and his personal data recorded on video , had breached his constitutional right to liberty , his personality rights and his right to freedom of assembly . Moreover , the procedure before ORG and ORG had failed to grant him effective redress in relation to these complaints .

On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which she endorsed the complaints made by the first applicant .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the first applicant ’s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and on DATE it declined to consider the second applicant ’s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , without giving reasons . The decisions were served on the applicants’ counsel on DATE ( in respect of the first applicant ) and on DATE ( in respect of the second applicant ) .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation proceedings for coercion against all persons present at the blockade of the crossroads on DATE . It dispensed with the prosecution of the offence as the PERSON culpability would be of a minor nature and as there was no public interest in the prosecution .

On DATE ORG confirmed ORG finding that the storage of data on the first applicant in the police databases on castor transports and on state security , which had been erased in the meantime , had been unlawful . Only the data concerning the first applicant contained in the LOC police ’s electronic record of police measures could be kept .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , on coercion , provides that whoever compels another person unlawfully by force or threat of a considerable harm to commit , acquiesce in or omit an act shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE or a fine . The act shall be unlawful for the purposes of LAW if the use of force or the threat of harm is to be considered reprehensible in order to attain the objective pursued by the act ( LAW ) .

The conditions under which the blocking of streets for reasons of political protest is punishable under LAW has been a matter of intense academic discussion for DATE and has been addressed and clarified by ORG in CARDINAL leading decisions ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL and others , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Collection of the decisions of ORG ) vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . ; file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL and others , decision of DATE , BVerfGE vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . , and file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL and others , decision of DATE , BVerfGE vol . ORG , pp . CARDINAL ss . ) . ORG found , in particular , that only a blockade in which the participants set up a physical barrier , going beyond the mere mental impact on the road users by their physical presence in the blocked street , may be classified as “ force ” for the purposes of LAW ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL and others , ibid . , LAW ) . Moreover , in determining whether an act amounted to a “ reprehensible ” coercion for the purposes of LAW , the criminal courts had to take into account the purpose of the blockade and , if applicable , the importance of the constitutional protection of the right to freedom of assembly ( ibid . , LAW . ) .

Under LAW , ORG and the police officers may take the measures necessary to establish the identity of a person who is suspected of having committed a criminal offence ( LAW , first sentence ) . The suspect may be held back if his or her identity can not be established in an alternative way or if establishment of his or her identity would be possible only with considerable difficulty ( LAW , second sentence ) .

Article PERSON of LAW provides that photographs and fingerprints of the accused may be taken even against his will and measurements may be made of him and other similar measures be taken with regard to him in so far as this is necessary for the conduct of the criminal proceedings or for the purposes of the police records .


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

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

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

The complaints raised in this application arise out of the NORP military intervention in northern GPE . The general context of the property issues arising in this context is set out in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL PERSON ) , and NORP and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ) .

NORP Before the military intervention in northern GPE in DATE the applicant ’s family lived in GPE and owned property there . This included the family ’s home ( “ plot CARDINAL ” ) , which was registered in the name of the applicant ’s mother , and CARDINAL commercial properties , which were registered in the name of a limited company , ORG ( “ NLS ” ) . The applicant ’s parents were the sole shareholders in ORG . According to ORG ’s articles of association , the CARDINAL commercial properties were to be distributed between the applicant and his CARDINAL brothers if their parents , the shareholders , so wished .

The first of the CARDINAL commercial properties , plot CARDINAL , was a groundfloor dwelling which the applicant ’s father planned to turn into a supermarket . The second , plot CARDINAL , was a supermarket which was in operation until the military intervention began .

When his mother died in DATE , the applicant ’s father decided to transfer all CARDINAL properties ( that is to say , the dwelling house and the CARDINAL commercial properties ) to the applicant and his brothers .

On DATE the ORG company , which had in the meantime ceased to be operational , was struck off the relevant register of companies .

On DATE the applicant , his father and his CARDINAL brothers lodged an application with the ORG , alleging violations of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL arising from their inability to access their CARDINAL properties ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE a Single Judge of the ORG declared their application inadmissible because it had been lodged before the domestic remedy available via the ORG had been exhausted and therefore had to be rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies .

On DATE the applicant ’s brothers transferred their shares in the properties to the applicant , making him the sole owner of all of them .

The transfer of the ownership of the properties in question is substantiated by certificates showing the history of ownership issued by ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application , supported by an affidavit , with the ORG under LAW no . TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) claiming compensation for all CARDINAL properties in the amount of QUANTITY ( GBP ) and GBP CARDINAL for the loss of their use . In support of his claim the applicant provided certificates issued by ORG attesting that he was the owner of the properties in question . In the affidavit , the applicant stated that his father had owned the properties in DATE and that there was no mortgage , restriction or other liability on the properties .

The applicant ’s claim was communicated to the “ GPE ” Attorney General as provided under PERSON no . TIME and the relevant IPC Rules ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant contended that the “ GPE ” Attorney General had failed to provide an opinion concerning his claim within DATE time - limit set out in the relevant provisions on the functioning of the ORG . He argued that the ORG should adopt a default decision on the basis of his claim .

At a meeting before the ORG on DATE the “ NORP ” Attorney General ’s representative stated that he had still not received a report concerning the properties that were being claimed by the applicant and he was therefore not in a position to provide an opinion .

Further meetings before the ORG scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned for the same reason .

Meanwhile , the applicant instructed a law firm to represent him in the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the “ NORP ” Attorney General submitted his opinion concerning the applicant ’s claim . The opinion relied on an affidavit by the “ GPE ” Director of ORG which stated that − according to their information − plots CARDINAL and CARDINAL had been owned by the ORG company in DATE , and plot CARDINAL by PERSON ( the applicant ’s mother ) . In the opinion the view was also expressed that the applicant ’s claim was excessive .

At a directions hearing on DATE the applicant ’s representative undertook to provide photographs of the properties and asked the “ NORP ” Attorney General to provide the relevant land registry search documents for the properties in question . The “ GPE ” Attorney General ’s representative asked the applicant to provide birth certificates for him and his parents , certificates from the head of the local community ( mukhtar ) attesting that the persons who owned the properties in DATE were the applicant ’s parents , and documents concerning the history of ownership of the properties after DATE and attesting that there were no liabilities attaching to them .

The applicant ’s representative produced the requested documents on DATE .

At a preliminary hearing before the ORG on DATE , the “ NORP ” Attorney General ’s representative and ORG informed the applicant and the ORG that no offer would be made in respect of the family house ( plot CARDINAL ) unless the claims made in respect of the CARDINAL commercial properties ( plots CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) were withdrawn . The applicant ’s representatives stated that they were trying to find a solution with the “ GPE ” authorities concerning issues relating to companies and mortgages . They therefore asked for a DATE ’s adjournment in order to monitor developments on the matter and stated that if a solution was not reached they would withdraw the request relating to the CARDINAL commercial properties .

At a meeting before the ORG on DATE the applicant ’s representative explained that they were working on the amendments of the relevant law with the “ NORP ” authorities and asked for a further adjournment of the examination of the case .

A further meeting before the ORG was held on DATE at which the applicant was also present . His representative asked for an adjournment , explaining that some additional documents needed to be provided and that there was no progress with the amendment of the relevant law . He also stated that the applicant would withdraw the claim with regard to the commercial properties .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives forwarded further necessary documents to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives submitted a letter to the ORG stating that , without prejudice , they were withdrawing the applicant ’s claim in respect of the CARDINAL commercial properties ( plots CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . They explained that before DATE the CARDINAL properties had been registered as the property of a company whose shareholders were the applicant ’s parents . Thereafter , the company had terminated its activities and its properties had been transferred to the NORP children ( the applicant and his brothers ) . Later , the company had been liquidated and now no longer existed as a legal entity . The applicant ’s representatives also submitted that as the transfer of properties had occurred after DATE and as the relationship between the applicant and the company was not defined as CARDINAL of legal succession within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the legislation did not provide the applicant with the possibility of submitting a claim for compensation for that property before the ORG . They considered that this was the reason why the “ GPE ’s ” representative had refused to make an offer for the compensation claim unless the CARDINAL commercial properties were withdrawn . Lastly , they argued that their decision to withdraw the claim was in line with the “ GPE ” High Administrative Court ’s practice in similar cases ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , which showed that the ORG could not be considered as a remedy in relation to a claim concerning the CARDINAL commercial properties .

At a meeting before the ORG on DATE , at which the applicant was also present , his representatives asked for an adjournment of the proceedings in order to consider a settlement offer in the amount of GBP CARDINAL made by the “ NORP ” authorities .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives informed the ORG that he would accept the offer .

On DATE a meeting was held before the ORG at which the “ GPE ” representatives noted that the applicant had withdrawn the claim in respect of the CARDINAL commercial properties ( plots CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and reiterated their offer to pay GBP CARDINAL in respect of the applicant ’s claim concerning the family house ( plot CARDINAL ) , which the applicant ’s representatives accepted . On the basis of the parties’ settlement , the ORG adopted a decision ordering the “ TRNC ” authorities to pay the aforementioned amount to the applicant in respect of his claim concerning the family house .

On DATE compensation in the amount of GBP CARDINAL was paid to the applicant .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) and ( c ) , in so far as relevant , provide as follows :

“ ( b ) All immovable properties , buildings and installations which were found abandoned on CARDINAL DATE when ORG of GPE was proclaimed or which were considered by law as abandoned or ownerless after the above - mentioned date , or which should have been in the possession or control of the public even though their ownership had not yet been determined ... and ( c ) ... shall be the property of the GPE notwithstanding the fact that they are not so registered in the books of ORG ; and ORG shall be amended accordingly . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ In the event of any person coming forward and claiming legitimate rights in connection with the immovable properties included in sub - paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ) of LAW above [ concerning , inter alia , all immovable properties , buildings and installations which were found abandoned on CARDINAL DATE ] , the necessary procedure and conditions to be complied with by such persons for proving their rights and the basis on which compensation shall be paid to them , shall be regulated by law . ”

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . TIME ( the LANGUAGE version available at TIME ) , which came into effect on DATE , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In this PERSON , unless the context otherwise requires ,

“ Applicant ” means the person applying to the ORG with a claim of right in respect of immovable properties which are within the scope of sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , and in respect to movable property which is claimed to be owned by such person , such property having been abandoned in the LOC prior to CARDINAL DATE , being the date of the proclamation of ORG of GPE .

“ Immovable property ” means immovable property within the scope of subparagraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . ”

“ CARDINAL . The purpose of this PERSON is to regulate the necessary procedure and conditions to be complied with by persons in order to prove their rights regarding claims in respect to movable and immovable properties within the scope of this PERSON , as well as , the principles relating to restitution , exchange of properties and compensation payable in respect thereof , having regard to the principle of and the provisions regarding protection of bizonality , which is the main principle of DATE High level Agreements and of all the plans prepared by ORG on solving ORG and without prejudice to any property rights or the right to use property under GPE legislation or to any right of ORG which shall be provided by the comprehensive settlement of LOC . ”

“ CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) All natural or legal persons claiming right to movable and immovable properties that are within the scope of this PERSON may bring a claim until DATE by way of an application in person or through a representative , to ORG constituted under LAW of this PERSON , requesting restitution , exchange or compensation for such property . Applications made to the Commission shall be subject to the LAW made under LAW and the LAW made under this PERSON , notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in any law or legislative instrument , only a fee of CARDINAL ORG ( CARDINAL NORP Liras ) shall be paid for each application . ”

“ CARDINAL . In proceedings before the ORG the burden of proof shall rest with the applicant who must satisfy the ORG beyond any reasonable doubt as to the following in order for a decision to be taken in his favour :

( CARDINAL ) That , the movable or immovable property in respect of which rights are claimed is the CARDINAL claimed in the application .

( CARDINAL ) That , in case of immovable property in respect of which the applicant claims rights , the property was registered in his name before DATE and/or he is the legal heir of the individual in whose name the immovable property was registered .

“ CARDINAL . The Commission , after having heard the arguments of the parties and witnesses , and having examined the documents submitted , shall , within the scope of the purposes of this PERSON , taking into consideration the below - mentioned matters , decide as to restitution of the immovable property to the person whose right in respect to the property has been established , or to offer exchange of the property to the said person , or decide as to payment of compensation . In cases where the applicant claims compensation for loss of use and/or non - pecuniary damages in addition to restitution , exchange or compensation in return for immovable property , the Commission shall also decide on these issues .

“ CARDINAL . NORP Parties have the right to apply to ORG against the decisions of the Commission . If the applicant is not satisfied with the judgment of ORG , he may apply to ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) For the implementation of this PERSON , an ORG composed of a President , a Vice - President , and minimum CARDINAL , maximum CARDINAL Members , whose qualifications are specified below , shall be established . CARDINAL members of the Commission to be appointed shall not be nationals of GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG . The decisions regarding the appointment of the members shall be published in ORG .

( A ) The President , Vice - President and the Members of the Commission shall be appointed by ORG from among persons nominated by the President of the Republic . The President of the Republic shall nominate a number of candidates twice the number of members to be appointed .

( B ) The President , Vice - President and Members of the ORG may be appointed from among lawyers or from among persons with experience in public administration and evaluation of property .

Any persons directly or indirectly deriving any benefit from immovable properties on which rights are claimed by those who had to move from the north of GPE in DATE , abandoning their properties , can not be appointed as members of the Commission .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall convene by minimum CARDINAL majority of the total number of members and shall take decisions by absolute majority of the members attending the meeting , including the President .

( CARDINAL ) The term of office of a member not participating in the Commission meetings without a valid reason ( illness , official duty abroad , and the like ) for CARDINAL times , may be terminated by ORG upon the request of the President of the Commission . The term of office of the President of the Commission not participating in the Commission meetings without a valid reason ( illness , official duty abroad , and the like ) for CARDINAL times , may be terminated by ORG upon the request of the President of the Republic . In other cases , the conditions for the termination of the term of office of a member of the Commission shall be the same as those applied to a ORG Judge .

( CARDINAL ) ORG secretariat shall be established in order to carry out the clerical and administrative work of the Commission . ...

( CARDINAL ) All employees of the Commission , including the President , Vice - President and Members , shall be employed as long as their services are required and subject to conditions determined by ORG , notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any other law relating to employment of service , duration of service , age limit , duration of contract , renewal of contract and condition of non - retirement .

( CARDINAL ) The President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission shall not hold any other office during their term of office .

“ CARDINAL . NORP The President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission established in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON shall be appointed for DATE . At DATE the President , Vice - President and Members may be re - appointed in the same manner . The President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission shall carry out their duties objectively and independently during their term of office which may only be terminated before the end of term subject to the provisions of LAW , above . No person or authority can give any order or instruction to the President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission .

If the function of the ORG is completed before the period envisaged in the PERSON the terms of office of the Commission members shall be automatically terminated . ”

“ CARDINAL . The Commission shall have the following duties and powers :

( CARDINAL ) To examine and reach a decision on applications made under this PERSON .

( CARDINAL ) To determine the amount and method of payment of compensation .

( CARDINAL ) To take necessary measures and decisions in order to conclude the proceedings concerning the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicants following the application of this PERSON .

( CARDINAL ) ORG , in carrying out its duties and exercising its powers mentioned above , may , if it deems necessary , collect written or oral testimony or hear witnesses .

( CARDINAL ) ORG may require written and oral testimony of any witness for the purpose of resolving any problems that may arise in the application of this PERSON , either under oath or by way of a declaration . Such evidence under oath , or by declaration shall be identical to that required for testimony before a Court of law .

( CARDINAL ) To summon any person residing in GPE to attend any meeting of the Commission in order to give testimony or produce any document in his possession and to be questioned as a witness .

( CARDINAL ) To compel any person to give evidence or to produce a document , when such person refuses to do so , following a request by ORG , whether under oath or by way of declaration , if the person concerned does not offer any satisfactory excuse to the Commission for such refusal .

However , witnesses may not be compelled to answer any incriminating question and no legal proceedings may be commenced for refusal to do so .

( CARDINAL) ORG may decide that expenses shall be paid to any persons summoned to give evidence in virtue of the application of this PERSON . ”

“ CARDINAL . The decisions of the Commission have binding effect and are of an executory nature similar to judgments of the judiciary . Such decisions shall be implemented without delay upon service on the authorities concerned . ”

“ CARDINAL . The processes to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON , summons to be issued to witnesses , the procedure for attendance before the ORG and that relating to the hearing shall be subject to the provisions of LAW . ”

Further relevant provisions of Law no . DATE are provided in NORP and Others v. GPE ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL provides that Rules for the better implementation of the provisions of that PERSON may be prepared by the ORG , approved by the “ ORG and published in ORG .

In DATE the ORG adopted its Rules ( the LANGUAGE version available at TIME ) regulating details of the procedure before it .

The relevant case - law of the “ TRNC ” Constitutional Court is summarised in GPE and Others ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

According to the available NORP translation of the judgment of the “ LAW in PERSON v. ORG C.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG ) of DATE , that court was called upon to examine the complaint of a plaintiff whose restitution claim had been rejected by the ORG on the grounds that her status as shareholder in a company that owned certain property in DATE , was not covered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE . The plaintiff argued that , since she owned the immovable property as a company shareholder , the ORG should have ruled in her favour .

The relevant part of the “ TRNC ” High Administrative Court ’s judgment reads :

“ ... [ T]he person who could apply to the ORG under PERSON no . TIME is defined under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the PERSON .

The relevant part of LAW , which was drawn out as an interpretation section , is as follows :

‘ ‘ Applicant’ means the person applying to the ORG with a claim of right in respect of immovable properties which are within the scope of sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , and in respect to movable property which is claimed to be owned by such person , such property having been abandoned in the LOC prior to CARDINAL DATE , being the date of the proclamation of ORG of GPE

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON is as follows :

‘ CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) That , in case of immovable property in respect of which the applicant claims rights , that the property was registered in his name before DATE and/or he is the legal heir of the individual in whose name the immovable property was registered.’

As it can be seen from the definitions cited above , a person who could apply to the ORG for the remedies that are foreseen in the law is an individual in whose name the subject matter property was registered and/or the legal heir of the property owner in whose name the property was registered on the date of CARDINAL . Viewing the undisputed facts and evidence before us , it can be seen that the owner of the immovable subject matter made up of CARDINAL plots is ORG The plaintiff has put forward that ORG is a family business , she is a shareholder of this company , the aforementioned properties were registered in her name due to this capacity , and these matters should have been taken into account by giving a ruling in favour of restitution .

The registered owner of the aforementioned properties on CARDINAL , ORG , is a company with a legal personality . The aforementioned company continues its legal entity despite having stopped its activities because it has not been struck off the register .

The fact that the company transferred the properties it owned to other persons , even if these persons were its shareholders , does not affect the legal status in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the law . For this reason it is not possible to give a legal value to the claims of the plaintiff that are outlined above .

When considering section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no CARDINAL/CARDINAL as cited above , the finding and ruling of the ORG that the plaintiff does not have a right to apply is not flawed .

As a result , the case is dismissed and cancelled . ... ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the LOC region .

At the material time the applicant was serving a sentence for robbery in correctional colony no . LIU-CARDINAL in the LOC region .

On DATE , DATE and DATE he attempted suicide by opening his veins .

On DATE a prison psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a slight mental retardation , psychopathy and claustrophobia with elements of self - aggression . An entry was made in his medical records that solitary confinement was contraindicated for mental health reasons . The correctional colony authorities were informed accordingly . The applicant was prescribed treatment . Since that time he had been examined by the prison psychiatrist at regular intervals . The prison psychiatrist ’s diagnosis and recommendations were confirmed by the psychiatric unit of prison hospital no . CARDINAL where the applicant was treated from CARDINAL to DATE .

On DATE the governor of the correctional colony ordered the applicant ’s placement in a punishment cell for DATE as a punishment for the disorderly state of his bed and bedside table .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by the prison doctor on duty who found that his state of health permitted his placement in a punishment cell , provided that he was not held in solitary confinement .

The applicant was then placed in punishment cell no . CARDINAL designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates . He was left alone in the cell , but the door was kept open .

On DATE the applicant went on a hunger strike in protest against his placement in solitary confinement .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was visited by the prison doctor on duty who examined him and found that his health was satisfactory . He reiterated the recommendation that given the applicant ’s mental condition solitary confinement was contraindicated .

After the doctor left , the door of the applicant ’s cell was shut . TIME the applicant had a panic attack and attempted to open his veins with his teeth . The doctor was called back . He noted numerous lacerated wounds on the applicant ’s forearms and made bandages .

By letters of DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor ’s office of LOC to initiate criminal proceedings against the warders on duty .

On DATE a deputy prosecutor of ORG refused to open criminal proceedings . He referred to statements by a warder , PERSON . , that the applicant had himself asked him to shut the door . Moreover , the applicant ’s health had not been seriously damaged as a result of the incident .

It follows from the letter of DATE from the prosecutor of ORG that the prosecutor ’s office had found that the applicant had been lawfully placed in a punishment cell . At the same time , the warders had disrespected the doctor ’s recommendation by leaving the applicant alone in a closed cell . The governor of correctional colony no . LIU-CARDINAL had been warned against “ permitting similar incidents to occur in future ” .

Following to further complaints by the applicant , in which he stated in particular that he had never asked the warders to close the door , the prosecutor of ORG conducted an additional inquiry . He questioned the applicant and PERSON . He also questioned warders PERSON and PERSON who testified that the door to the applicant ’s cell had been temporarily closed to prevent his communication with other inmates who were at that time receiving clean bedding in the storage room opposite to the applicant ’s cell .

On DATE the prosecutor of PERSON refused to open criminal proceedings against the warders . He found that the warders had acted in compliance with the internal regulations and had had no intention of provoking the applicant to self - injury .

The applicant challenged the prosecutor ’s decisions of DATE and DATE before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decisions , finding that the inquiry had been thorough and the refusals to open criminal proceedings had been lawful and justified .

NORP The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the warders had known that he suffered from claustrophobia and had closed the door to take vengeance on him for going on a hunger strike .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE he began working as a biology teacher at a private tutoring centre ( dershane ) in ORG . DATE he worked there on a contractual basis . The renewal of his contracts was subject to the approval of the Director of ORG attached to ORG .

On DATE ORG decided not to renew the applicant ’s contract , on the strength of a security investigation conducted into him .

On DATE he was informed by the head of the tutoring centre that his contract was being terminated .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , challenging the termination of his contract . In his application , he stated , inter alia , that he had not been informed of the reasons for his dismissal and that the administrative authorities had failed to respect the established case - law of ORG , according to which security investigations could not be used as the sole basis of an administrative decision , as their content was confidential . The applicant submitted that he had been working at the private tutoring centre since its establishment in DATE and that his right to work was breached on account of this unlawful administrative decision . The applicant claimed that he was deprived of his livelihood as he did not have any other work and that the administrative authorities’ decisions had irreversible consequences for his life .

On DATE ORG annulled ORG ’s decision . In its judgment , the court noted that ORG had decided to terminate the applicant ’s contract on the basis of a security investigation conducted by the office of LOC of the state - of - emergency ( PERSON ) . The court further noted that the administrative authorities had been requested to provide information on the reasons for the termination of his contract . In a document sent to the court by ORG , it was stated that the applicant had been involved in a number of ideological activities before DATE ; that the PERSON police had instituted proceedings against him for having committed an offence against the “ national legal personality of the State ” ; that he had been sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ; and that he had been the representative of the ORG branch of PERSON ( a trade union ) in DATE . The court considered that the applicant had worked in ORG schools for DATE and had been known to the administrative authorities when he began working at the private tutoring centre . It therefore concluded that the decision to terminate his contract , which had been taken on the basis of intelligence information known to the authorities from the outset , had been unlawful .

On DATE ORG appealed against the judgment of DATE . In the appeal , it was noted that the applicant had been involved in illegal activities and therefore did not possess the right qualities to be a teacher . It was also stated that the administrative authorities , taking into consideration the particularities of the country and the region concerned , as well as the nature and the sensitivity of the post , had found that there was no public interest in keeping him employed in his post .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment . It noted that the Regional Governor of the state - of - emergency had conducted a security investigation into the applicant . That investigation had revealed that he had been involved in several ideological activities before DATE ; that a criminal investigation had been initiated against him for having committed an offence against the “ national legal personality of the State ” ; and that he had been sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . These were the reasons for which he had been dismissed from his post . ORG held that the decision dismissing the applicant following the security investigation had been lawful , since he had been sentenced to imprisonment for having committed a crime against the ORG and there was information to suggest that he had been involved in ideological activities for illegal organisations . ORG also had regard to the particularities of the region where he had worked .

On an unspecified date the applicant ’s representative applied to ORG , requesting rectification of its decision of DATE . In his request , he maintained that the applicant had been charged with being a member of an organisation whose aim was to establish the domination of a particular social class and for disseminating propaganda , under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) respectively , and had been sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for his activities before DATE . He further contended that the ORG in question had been repealed in DATE , and that on CARDINAL DATE of DATE the trial court had decided to overturn the applicant ’s criminal conviction and erase his criminal record . He argued that dismissing the applicant on the basis of his erased criminal record and the findings of a security investigation which were not publicly accessible had been unlawful and in breach of his right to a fair trial under the Convention .

On DATE ORG dismissed his request holding that his submissions could not be the basis of a rectification of decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s case , taking into account ORG decision and referring to the reasoning in the latter ’s judgment .

The applicant appealed . In his appeal , his representative repeated the submissions put forward in his request for rectification of ORG decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE , holding that the latter was in accordance with the law .


CASE OF BABAYEV AND HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

NORP The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .

At the material time the first applicant was a member of the youth committee of an opposition party , ORG of GPE ( Azərbaycan Xalq Cəbhəsi Partiyası – “ the PFPA ” ) , and the second applicant was a chairman of a youth organisation called PERSON .

Both applicants participated in a number of unauthorised peaceful demonstrations organised by the opposition . In the course of many of those demonstrations , they were arrested and convicted . In particular , the first applicant was arrested during the demonstrations on CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE .

The number of opposition demonstrations increased in DATE . That tendency continued into DATE . Demonstrations were held , inter alia , on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The second applicant attended the demonstrations of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The first applicant attended the demonstrations of CARDINAL October and CARDINAL DATE .

According to the first applicant , he also intended to participate in the demonstration of DATE . Moreover , he was actively promoting public participation in that assembly on online social networks .

It appears that the organisers of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE gave no proper prior notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . Information about the assembly was disseminated through ORG or the press .

Prior to the demonstrations of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the organisers had given notice to the ORG .

The ORG refused to authorise the demonstration of DATE at the site indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of GPE the grounds of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth habitable area of LOC .

The ORG also refused to authorise the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . It noted in general terms that that assembly would not be in accordance with ORG . The ORG further noted that the square where the organisers proposed to hold the assembly was a designated public leisure area and that the assembly itself would be impractical .

The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations as planned . According to the applicants , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were demanding democratic reforms in the country and free and fair elections , and protesting against impediments on freedom of assembly .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested and brought to police station no . CARDINAL of the LOC district police office .

According to the official records , he was arrested because at TIME , in front of ORG , he had disobeyed a lawful order of the police to stop speaking loudly on a mobile phone and to stop using foul language . He also swore at the police officers and tried to run away when being arrested .

The applicant contested the official version of his arrest . He stated that he had been arrested in an Internet café by CARDINAL persons in plain clothes who had failed to present themselves or give reasons for the arrest . They had taken his belongings from the Internet café , including his mobile phone . He had been pushed into an unmarked car . There QUANTITY of the persons who had arrested him had presented himself as a police officer and shown a police badge . The other CARDINAL had presented themselves as agents of ORG , without showing any supporting document . He had been told that the arrest had been in connection with the demonstration of DATE and another protest planned to be held on DATE .

At the police station an administrative - offence report ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was issued in respect of the applicant , setting out the charges against him . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) ( failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer ) .

According to the applicant , he was never served with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents from his case file . He was also not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while he was in police custody .

On DATE of his arrest the applicant was brought before ORG , which on DATE adopted a decision on the merits .

According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing . A ORG - funded lawyer ( Mr O.A. ) was appointed to assist him .

According to the transcript of the first - instance court ’s hearing , Mr O.A. did not make any oral or written submissions .

NORP In his statement before the court the applicant contested the police FAC version of events and argued that he had been arrested unlawfully . The court disregarded that statement as non - reliable .

Only the police officers who , according to the official records , had arrested the applicant and the police officer who issued the administrativeoffence report in respect of him were questioned as witnesses . In their statements those police officers reiterated the official version of the reasons for the applicant ’s arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The court found that the applicant had committed the administrative offence attributed to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It convicted the applicant under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention .

According to the applicant , until DATE his whereabouts were unknown to his family and friends .

Only on DATE was a lawyer hired by his family able to meet the applicant and to learn the details of his arrest , detention and the court proceedings against him .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , presenting his version of the events surrounding his arrest , and arguing that he had been arrested in connection with the demonstration scheduled for DATE . The applicant also complained that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair .

In addition , he applied to the appellate court to have examined his mobile - phone call records in respect of the date and time of the alleged administrative offence .

The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choosing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that the conclusions reached by that court had been correct .

The appellate court did not address the applicant ’s above - mentioned request to have his mobile - phone call records examined .

As mentioned above , the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE was attended by the second applicant , the demonstration of DATE by both applicants , and the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE by the first applicant .

All CARDINAL demonstrations were dispersed as soon as the protesters began to gather . Both applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and after each arrest were taken to police station no . CARDINAL of the GPE district police office .

According to the applicants , during the dispersal of the demonstrations of DATE and CARDINAL DATE they were arrested by individuals in plain clothes .

On DATE of each of the applicants’ respective arrests , administrative - offence reports were issued in respect of them . In each case the applicants were charged with an administrative offence under Article CARDINAL of the ORG . Following their arrest on DATE the applicants were additionally charged under LAW ( violation of rules on holding public assemblies ) of the ORG .

According to the applicants , they were never served with a copy of the administrative - offence reports or with other documents from their case files . They were also not given access to a lawyer after their arrests or while they were in police custody .

The applicants were brought before ORG on DATE of each arrest ( specifically , the first applicant on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and the second applicant on DATE and DATE ) .

According to the applicants , the respective hearings before the firstinstance court were very brief . Members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearings to the public .

According to the applicants , they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing .

A ORG - funded lawyer was appointed to defend the applicants at each hearing .

According to the transcript of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , in his oral submissions the ORG - funded lawyer for the second applicant ( Mr V.M. ) briefly asked the court to consider the young age of the applicant and his sincere regret for having committed the administrative offence .

None of the material submitted to the ORG contains any record showing that at the hearings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the ORG - funded lawyer for the second applicant ( Mr GPE ) or the ORG - funded lawyer for the first applicant ( Mr Z.A. ) made any oral or written submissions on behalf of the applicants .

According to a statement ( “ ərizə ” ) signed by the first applicant , he refused the assistance of the ORG - funded lawyer at the hearing of DATE and decided to defend himself in person .

The only witnesses questioned during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE concerning the second applicant were police officers who , according to official records , had arrested him . They testified that together with some other people the applicant had attempted to hold an unlawful demonstration and continued to protest despite the order to disperse . During the hearings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court did not question any witnesses .

In each case ORG found that the applicants had failed to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted the applicants under LAW . In the proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of DATE the second applicant was also convicted under LAW . The applicants were sentenced to various periods of administrative detention ( see Appendix ) .

On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights , because the protest in which they had participated had been peaceful . The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful , and that the hearings before the first - instance court had not been fair . They asked ORG to quash the first - instance court ’s decisions in their respective cases .

The first applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing in each case before ORG . The second applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing during the appellate - court proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of DATE , but he was not represented by a lawyer during the appellate - court proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE .

On various dates ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the first - instance court ( see Appendix ) .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is an anti - nuclear and environmental activist . She has repeatedly used her climbing skills to draw public attention to her protest .

On DATE around TIME the applicant and CARDINAL further persons belonging to the ORG organisation , an environmental protection group , climbed on the arch of a railway bridge . The group fixed banners expressing protest against the transport , by train , of radioactive waste from GPE , GPE , to the interim storage facility in GPE , scheduled from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . The members of the group refused to have themselves roped down by the police , who had dissolved their assembly . They were finally roped down by ORG mountain rescue team . The police then arrested TIME at CARDINAL p.m. while the other CARDINAL participants remained at liberty . They further seized the banners and the climbing equipment .

On DATE at TIME LOC , having heard the applicant and the GPE police , ordered the applicant ’s detention for preventive purposes under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG ( PERSON über die öffentliche PERSON , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That detention was to last until the arrival of the “ castor ” containers in GPE train station and until DATE , TIME at the most .

ORG found that the applicant , who had been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts , and CARDINAL further persons had let themselves down on a rope on a railway bridge . They had unrolled banners protesting against the castor transport . A commuter train had to be stopped because its passage would have put the protesters at risk .

ORG considered that the applicant ’s detention was indispensable in order to prevent the imminent commission of a regulatory offence of considerable importance to the general public , as required by section CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG . There was a risk that the applicant would block the forthcoming transport of the castor containers scheduled from DATE by a climbing action . Thereby , she would commit regulatory offences under ORG ( ORG - Bau- PERSON ) and LAW ) which would be dangerous to the public . That risk was also imminent in the applicant ’s case as she was known for expressing political protest , including protest against the transport of castor containers , by climbing actions and for being ready to breach the law in that context .

On DATE at TIME ORG , having heard the applicant in person at TIME , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision .

On DATE at TIME the ORG quashed the order of DATE for the applicant ’s detention for preventive purposes and ordered the applicant ’s immediate release .

ORG found that , having regard to the applicant ’s deteriorating state of health , there was no longer a risk that the applicant would commit a criminal or regulatory offence of considerable importance to the general public , as required by section CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG , in the context of the transport of castor containers to PERSON . Moreover , her continued detention was no longer proportionate in these circumstances . ORG noted that medical doctor C. , who had visited the applicant in detention on the latter ’s request , had confirmed that the applicant suffered from serious rheumatism which necessitated her to move continuously and was in a poor mental condition . Her detention in FAC , with little possibility to move , had already led to her joints having stiffened . The doctor had explained that she was not in a position to assess the applicant ’s fitness for detention , but that it appeared excluded that the applicant would be capable of carrying out a climbing action in DATE to come .

The applicant was released on DATE at TIME

Following her arrest on DATE at TIME the applicant , having been found by a doctor of ORG not to suffer from any health problems , was brought before ORG which ordered her detention at TIME Following ORG decision , the applicant was accompanied home by the police officers from TIME to TIME in order to enable her to take her own clothes and medication . She was detained in a cell in FAC from TIME until DATE at TIME , when she was brought to ORG . The applicant ’s small cell , equipped with a mattress and a chair , was lighted at least via a ventilation slot and by electric light .

Between the end of the hearing of the applicant by ORG on DATE at TIME and its decision at TIME on DATE , the applicant essentially stayed in the office area of FAC . She went outside for a walk on the banks of the GPE river with the police officers CARDINAL times during that period .

Following ORG decision , the police decided to transfer the applicant to ORG which was considered being better equipped for police custody . When the applicant complained about breathing problems during the journey , the police called an ambulance . When both the ambulance crew and a police doctor had found that the applicant did not suffer from health problems , the transfer was continued in the ambulance .

The applicant was detained in FAC from DATE , TIME until her release on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. Her cell was equipped with a bed , an empty desk , a chair and an open cupboard and had a barred window with frosted glass . In the corridor of the detention wing , which she had to pass to go to the toilet , photographs of shackled persons were exposed . These included a picture of a person subject to ankle and hand cuffs , with both cuffs being tied together by a chain in the person ’s back lying on a mattress on the ground .

During the applicant ’s detention in FAC , the light in her cell remained switched on throughout the applicant ’s first night in that cell . The applicant had climbed on the cupboard in her cell and passed the night thereon , failing to comply with the police ’s order to descend . The applicant was taken out for a walk on the premises of FAC , which did not dispose of a closed courtyard , on DATE from TIME until TIME , being loosely shackled to a female police officer . On DATE the applicant was allowed to stay outside on those premises from TIME until TIME , without being shackled ; she climbed on a tree on that occasion . The applicant was supplied with writing material on DATE . She was further allowed to receive CARDINAL visits from a friend and CARDINAL from her doctor C. She was also allowed to telephone her lawyer and her partner several times .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action of DATE under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against the GPE police for a finding that both the order for her detention and the conditions of its execution had been unlawful .

As regards the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention ORG , endorsing the findings of fact made by ORG in its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as well as its reasoning , confirmed that the detention had complied with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG and LAW .

As regards the execution of the detention order against the applicant , ORG considered that the manner in which the detention had been enforced had been lawful and had complied , in particular , with the provisions of LAW ( PERSON , see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

ORG noted that the detention order was executed in the detention wing of ORG until DATE and subsequently in the detention wing of ORG .

As to the applicant ’s complaint that her detention cells did not have windows , but only ventilation slots , ORG considered that the equipment of the detention cells had complied with no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) and that there had been enough light . The recommendations of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) were irrelevant here . The photographs of shackled persons exposed in the detention wing of ORG may have been tasteless , but did not render the applicant ’s detention unlawful as a result of intimidation .

NORP Moreover , there had not been a breach of the right to sufficient TIME ’s rest provided by no . CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In GPE , some noise made by a ventilator may have made it more difficult for the applicant to fall asleep , but the police was not obliged to be considerate of individual sensitivities . The fact that the light had remained switched on TIME in GPE had been a consequence of the applicant ’s own behaviour . She had insisted spending TIME on the cell ’s cupboard the height of which was QUANTITY . The light had therefore been necessary for her own protection . It had not been possible for the police to guarantee that , in case the applicant had fallen down from the cupboard , they would notice it immediately otherwise . According to ORG , the applicant could ask herself whether she would have preferred having been shackled for her protection instead .

Furthermore , the court noted that on DATE the applicant had been outside on the premises of ORG from TIME until TIME She had to be shackled as , being an excellent climber , there had been a risk that she would climb on trees or buildings and abscond . The applicant had not , therefore , been “ taken for a walk like an animal ” on the parking . On DATE the applicant had been outside from TIME until TIME She had not been shackled and had been allowed to climb on a tree . She had not objected to returning to the detention wing afterwards .

ORG further considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate that her state of health in detention had deteriorated in a manner so as to render her detention disproportionate already prior to ORG decision of DATE ordering her release . There had not been a written and impartial medical report proving the applicant ’s allegation in that respect . The doctor who had visited the applicant in detention and had persuaded the then competent ORG judge to order her release had probably been a sympathiser .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE .

As to the legality of the applicant ’s detention , ORG , endorsing the findings in its decision of DATE , confirmed that the applicant ’s detention as such had complied with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG .

ORG further confirmed that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention , albeit onerous for the applicant , had complied with the applicable legal provisions and had not been so unacceptable as to render the execution of her detention unlawful .

As regards the applicant ’s detention during TIME in the detention cell in FAC , ORG found that the cell had been uncomfortable , but had complied with no . CARDINAL of ORG in the version then in force ( see paragraph DATE below ) . In that police station there were no detention cells suitable for a deprivation of liberty lasting DATE . Despite this , the police had convincingly explained that transporting the applicant to and back from GPE for the hearing before ORG DATE would have restricted her even more in her liberty of movement . Furthermore , she had not complained to the police about the noise at night emanating from a ventilator .

Moreover , the GPE police had taken care of the applicant ’s well - being after her hearing before ORG ( on DATE from TIME until TIME ) while they waited for ORG decision until TIME with the applicant in an office in FAC in that they had taken her outside CARDINAL times .

As regards the applicant ’s subsequent detention in FAC , ORG noted that the applicant arrived at that station on DATE at TIME after the crew of the ambulance called by the police and a police doctor had confirmed her fitness for detention despite the breathing difficulties she had informed the police of . ORG further confirmed ORG finding that the pictures of shackled persons in the corridor of the detention wing – which included a photograph of a person subject to ankle and hand cuffs – may have been tasteless . However , it had neither been shown that the pictures had been put up to intimidate prisoners nor that the applicant had been intimidated in a considerable manner by them . Moreover , the court considered that it had been lawful for the police to leave the light switched on during TIME . It noted that the applicant had climbed on a cupboard measuring QUANTITY and had failed to descend on the police ’s request . By choosing not to descend her by force and by leaving the light on instead the police had respected as much as possible the applicant ’s right to liberty .

As regards the applicant ’s right to stays outside during her detention in GPE , ORG , endorsing the findings of ORG in this respect , found that the right provided by no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to be allowed to stay outside for TIME in so far as the staffing and infrastructural situation permitted had not been breached . Shackling the applicant to a female police officer on DATE had been necessary in order to prevent the applicant from absconding . The applicant , an excellent climber , had previously shown that she was not ready to comply with the police ’s orders and there had not been a closed courtyard as in prison . On DATE the applicant had not been shackled during her time outside and had been allowed to climb on a tree . She had also been able to move within her cell in order to alleviate ailments resulting from her rheumatism .

As regards the applicant ’s right to receive visits in detention , ORG observed that under no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , such visits were permitted in so far as they did not endanger the purpose of the detention and were authorised by the police . The said provision had to be read in conjunction with section QUANTITY of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG noted that ORG had received CARDINAL telephone calls of sympathisers of the applicant , some of whom had insulted the police , which had considerably disturbed the execution of the applicant ’s detention . It had not been unlawful in these circumstances for the police not to permit visits by persons who had presented themselves at the police station without having lodged a request for a visit . In any event , the applicant had been visited by CARDINAL persons while in detention , in addition to the CARDINAL visits by her doctor , C. , who had prescribed her necessary medication and had brought a couple of magazines . Her right to receive visits had not been unlawfully restricted in these circumstances .

By submissions dated DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG of DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE , and against the decision of GPE of DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE . She argued , in particular , that her right to liberty , the principle of proportionality and her right to freedom of assembly and of expression had been violated by her long illegal detention in unreasonable conditions in order to prevent insignificant regulatory offences . Her complaint was registered under file no . DATE .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE addressed to the applicant in person , ORG informed the applicant that her constitutional complaint of DATE against the decisions of ORG of DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE , in so far as the decisions concerned the conditions of her detention , had been registered under file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against the abovementioned CARDINAL decisions in so far as these decisions concerned the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention , without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . ORG decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE . In her letter to ORG dated DATE the applicant ’s counsel , referring to the CARDINAL file numbers assigned to the applicant ’s constitutional complaint , the letter of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE , asked for a progress report ; she was informed that it was not possible to indicate when a decision on the complaint under file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL would be taken .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against the decision of ORG dated DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE , without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .