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

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

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

On DATE , after his daughter had committed suicide in DATE , the applicant notified ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) and complained that the child ’s paternal grandparents had prevented him from contacting his DATE granddaughter who had not been informed about her mother ’s death and therefore had been potentially exposed to a severe emotional trauma .

On DATE the Agency informed the applicant that they had initiated an investigation in respect of his claims .

On DATE the ORG summoned the paternal grandparents together with the applicant ’s granddaughter to its office for an interview aimed at clarifying their family ’s situation .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG to produce a social investigation report on the paternal PERSON home .

On DATE the ORG summoned the applicant to its office for an interview aimed at clarifying his family ’s situation .

On DATE the applicant ’s son - in - law , who had been accompanied by his granddaughter , was interviewed at the ORG ’s office . According to the conversation report produced on that occasion the applicant ’s son - in - law had informed the ORG that his wife had suffered from depression because he had left to work abroad . He had returned to GPE DATE prior to the meeting at the ORG and had not told his daughter about her mother ’s death . He had acknowledged that his daughter had to be informed about her mother ’s death and had agreed to inform her with the help of a psychologist . He had also stated that the applicant had used to have a normal relationship with his granddaughter , before he had started pressuring them and picking fights in front of their home . The applicant had not agreed to the marriage between him and his wife and had used to interfere in their marriage .

According to that report the applicant ’s son - in - law had also been counselled on how to speak to his daughter about her mother and had been advised to shield her from family fights .

On DATE the ORG provided the applicant ’s granddaughter with psychological counselling in order to prepare her for the news that her mother had died .

On DATE ORG produced the social investigation report requested by the ORG on DATE . The report concluded that the child had a close connection to her father and her paternal grandparents who had cared for her in her father ’s absence . The father ’s family had provided the child with normal conditions for her physical , moral and intellectual development and her health had not been endangered .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed at the ORG ’s office . According to the conversation report produced on that occasion the applicant had informed the ORG that his relationship with his son - in - law had been very bad and that his son - in - law had refused to allow him into his home .

According to the same report the ORG ’s representatives had explained to the applicant that he had made a mistake in informing his granddaughter about her mother ’s death directly and without any preliminary coaching . He had been advised that it would be in the best interest of the child to avoid and to solve family conflicts . He had also been informed that it would be advisable for him to avoid speaking ill of his sonin - law in front of his granddaughter .

On DATE the Agency informed the applicant following his enquiry that they could have ordered his granddaughter ’s psychological evaluation only if it had been ordered by a court or had been requested by her father . Moreover , they stated that they had not been competent to punish an individual for failure to comply with a final court judgment . Furthermore , they noted that the applicant ’s granddaughter had received psychological counselling in respect of her mother ’s death and in order to help her process the trauma .

On an unspecified date the applicant asked the ORG to inform him whether he had a right to have contact with his granddaughter and whether she could have been counselled in the absence of her father in order to improve his relationship with her .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that they did not have the competence to contradict the final court judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) granting him visiting rights . Moreover , they stated that the child could not have undergone psychological counselling without her father ’s consent on account of her young age and the fact that the ORG ’s intervention had not been needed for reasons imputable to the applicant ’s son - in - law .

On DATE the Agency informed ORG that in DATE they had supported the applicant in his attempts to rekindle his relationship with his granddaughter . They stated that , following his daughter ’s death , the applicant had asked the ORG to intervene and to help him preserve his relationship with his granddaughter . Following the applicant ’s notification , the ORG ’s representatives had spoken to the applicant ’s son - in - law . Because his son - in - law had not informed his granddaughter about her mother ’s death , the applicant ’s son - in - law and the child had been included in psychological counselling program which had led to the applicant ’s granddaughter finding out the truth about her mother . Neither the ORG ’s , nor ORG investigations carried out at the child home had disclosed any danger for the child . In this context , ORG had mediated a meeting between the applicant , his son - in - law and his granddaughter in order to observe their interaction and to help resolve the conflict between the CARDINAL parties so that the child would not be traumatised even further . During that meeting , the interaction between the applicant and the applicant ’s son - in - law had been very tense . The applicant had accused his son - in - law of killing his daughter and had called him a murderer in front of the child . Because the applicant ’s son - in - law had also been verbally aggressive towards the applicant , both parties had been advised on the negative consequences of their behaviour in respect of the child . Whilst the applicant ’s son - in - law had changed his behaviour and had mastered his anger , the applicant had failed to do the same even though he had been warned that his behaviour might affect his granddaughter ’s emotional wellbeing and that it had caused her to reject contact with him . The applicant ’s granddaughter had refused any physical contact with the applicant both before and after she had been counselled by a psychologist .

On the same dates ORG also informed ORG that every time the applicant ’s granddaughter had been brought to the ORG , her psychological evaluation had been carried out in CARDINAL stages : her interaction with the adults had been observed and afterwards she had received psychological counselling in the absence of her father . Also , given the child ’s young age , the fact that her father had been her legal representative and that he had not been a danger to the child , there had been no legal basis for the ORG to accept the applicant ’s request to organise psychological counselling sessions between him and his granddaughter without the father ’s consent and in his absence . Moreover , after PERSON no . CARDINAL on protection of the rights of children had been amended on DATE a person facing conflicts caused by enforcement of visiting rights could have notified the social protection service from the child ’s domicile . However , after the aforementioned date the applicant had no longer contacted ORG , and the latter had not been informed by ORG either that the applicant had faced problems with the enforcement of his visiting rights .

On DATE the applicant opened proceedings against his son - in - law seeking custody of his granddaughter .

On DATE the applicant amended his application and asked the domestic courts to grant him visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter if his request for custody rights was dismissed . He asked to see his granddaughter every DATE at her home and to be granted the right to take her at his house for DATE during DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed in part the applicant ’s action and granted him visiting rights DATE from TIME at his granddaughter ’s and son - in - law ’s home . It held that the applicant was entitled to have a normal relationship with his granddaughter , a fact that had also been acknowledged by the applicant ’s son - in - law who had objected only to the visiting schedule requested by the applicant . A normal relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter was in the child ’s best interest . Given the child ’s young age , she needed a stable living environment which could have been affected if she had to travel to the applicant ’s home for DATE during DATE . The applicant could also have asked for an extension of his visiting rights once his relationship with his granddaughter had improved and the child had grown older .

The applicant appealed against the judgment before ORG . He asked to be granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter at his house or in a neutral location on account of his poor relationship with his son - in - law . He further argued that a denial of his request by the court would prevent him from actually reconnecting with the child .

On an unspecified date ORG ordered the ORG to produce a psychological evaluation report in respect of the applicant ’s granddaughter .

On DATE , following the second - instance court ’s order for a psychological evaluation report , the ORG organised a meeting between the applicant , his granddaughter and his son - in - law in order to assess their interaction . According to the meeting report produced on DATE , at the beginning of the meeting the applicant ’s daughter had sat only in her father ’s lap and had not approached the applicant . Afterwards , she had been examined by a psychologist . The applicant ’s son - in - law had stated that when the applicant had come to see his granddaughter according to the court ’s schedule he had told the child that her father would murder her just as he had done with her mother . At the same time the applicant had claimed that his son - in - law had been controlling his granddaughter and had turned her against him . The parties had been advised that mediation services could have been provided for them in order to help them resolve their conflict . The applicant ’s son - in - law had refused , however , to leave the child alone with her grandfather because he could not have trusted his behaviour towards her . The applicant had accused his son - in - law of murdering his daughter in front of the child . At the end of the meeting the child had refused interact with her grandparent .

On DATE the Agency produced the psychological evaluation report ordered by the second - instance court . It concluded that the applicant , his son - in - law and his granddaughter had needed psychological counselling in order to enable them to resolve their conflict and to rekindle their relationship .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal , quashed in part the judgment of the first - instance court and granted him visiting rights on DATE from TIME at his home . It held , amongst other things , that according to the available evidence the applicant and his granddaughter had enjoyed an affectionate relationship both prior and after the child ’s mother ’s death . The relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter had changed abruptly and the child had refused to see her grandfather any more , her refusal being fuelled by a feeling of fear towards her grandfather . The conclusions of the psychological evaluation report produced in respect of the child had recommended psychological counselling for both the applicant and the child ’s father in order to resolve the conflict between them and to allow them to have a balanced relationship with the child . Consequently , the conflict between the applicant and his son - in - law had influenced the applicant ’s relationship with his granddaughter , given that the child ’s attitude towards her grandfather had changed . In the absence of any evidence that the applicant would have endangered the child ’s physical or moral development , he had been entitled to have a personal relationship with his granddaughter . Given the excessively tense situation between the applicant and his son - in - law , the age and the interests of the child , the relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter could have been rekindled only if he had been allowed to take her to his home during the allowed visiting TIME .

The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . He asked to be granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter either every DATE or alternatively every second DATE at his house on account of his busy work programme . He further argued that a denial of his request by the court would prevent him from rekindling the relationship with his granddaughter .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . It held , amongst other things , that it was in the best interest of the child to have contact with her grandfather given that the applicant had not endangered his granddaughter ’s physical and moral development and that prior and after the child ’s mother ’s death they had had an affectionate relationship with one another which had been affected by the death of the child ’s mother and the conflict between the applicant and his son - in - law . In spite of the child ’s fear towards the applicant , according to the social investigation report the best interest of the child had been to establish a functional relationship with the applicant , reason for which the parties psychological counselling had been recommended . However , the visiting schedule requested by the applicant would have been tiring for the child , given their family situation and the child ’s young age and would have also limited the applicant ’s son - in - law ’s time spent with his child . The visiting programme could have been changed once the factual circumstances had changed and if it had been in the best interest of the child . Consequently , it was more appropriate for the applicant to have contact with his granddaughter only CARDINAL DATE per month .

On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against his son - in - law on the basis of LAW for repeatedly obstructing him to see his granddaughter . He argued that although on DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE he had contacted his son - in - law and had asked him to allow him to have contact with his granddaughter , his son - in - law had refused to allow him to see her .

On DATE ORG dismissed the criminal proceedings opened by the applicant against his son - in - law . It held that even though the applicant had been granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter by a final court judgment , every time he had asked her to go with him to his home she had obstinately refused . Moreover , the child had been heard in the presence of a representative of ORG and she had refused to go to the applicant ’s house because she had feared him after he had repeatedly visited her at school and had scared her with his repeated requests to follow him home . Furthermore , the psychological report produced by ORG showed that the child had feared the applicant and had recommended that the child underwent psychological counselling in order to rekindle her relationship with the applicant . Lastly , the applicant ’s son - in - law had only observed his child ’s wishes and there was no evidence that he had influenced the child . The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s office ’s decision before the domestic courts .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant . It held that the applicant was not a parent and therefore the elements required for the offence provided by LAW to exist had not been met . Moreover , the police officers had heard the child in the presence of the representative of ORG and she had refused to go to the applicant ’s home because she had feared him . The child had also stated that her father had never told her not to go to the applicant ’s home .

In his initial letters the applicant informed the ORG that in his hometown there had been CARDINAL bailiffs and all of them had refused to help him enforce the final judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant employed a bailiff located in GPE to enforce the final judgment of DATE .

On DATE the bailiff employed by the applicant motioned ORG to approve the enforcement of the final judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG approved the bailiff ’s request .

On DATE the bailiff informed the applicant ’s soninlaw that enforcement proceedings had been initiated against him following the applicant ’s request . She invited the applicant ’s son - in - law to her office on DATE in order for him to pay the required enforcement fees and to provide the required information concerning his assets . She also informed him that failure to comply or to provide the required information was punishable by fines .

On DATE the bailiff notified the applicant ’s son - in - law that he needed to comply with the domestic courts’ judgment and that the first meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on DATE . She also notified him that she would proceed with the enforcement of the judgment as provided , among other things , by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG if he refused to comply .

On DATE the applicant ’s son - in - law agreed before the bailiff to obey the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the bailiff accompanied the applicant to his granddaughter ’s home in order to enforce the judgment . The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the applicant ’s soninlaw had agreed to allow the applicant to see his granddaughter and had not obstructed the enforcement proceedings . The applicant ’s granddaughter had a strong emotional connection with her father and had been hostile towards the applicant . She had obstinately refused to accompany her grandfather anywhere without her father being present because she had feared her grandfather . Consequently , the applicant and his son - in - law had agreed , with the child ’s consent , to take the child in a public location and to spend the day together accompanied by the bailiff . The applicant had been able to give his granddaughter a gift and had interacted with her calmly and openly . The applicant ’s son in law had agreed to allow his daughter to visit her grandfather any time she wished and even on other days than the ones that had been mentioned by the court . The applicant ’s granddaughter had agreed to have future contact with her grandfather but only in her father ’s presence .

On DATE the bailiff notified the applicant ’s son - in - law for a second time that he needed to comply with the domestic courts’ judgment and that the second meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on DATE . She also reiterated that she would proceed with the enforcement of the judgment as provided , among other things , by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG if he refused to comply .

On DATE the bailiff accompanied the applicant to his granddaughter ’s home . The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the parties had agreed for the meeting to take place in a public location after they had consulted the applicant ’s granddaughter ’s wishes . The applicant ’s son - in - law had reiterated his willingness to allow the applicant to visit his granddaughter , but had informed the bailiff that she had refused to see her grandfather in his absence or in a different location than the one she had chosen . At the same time , the applicant had expressed his dissatisfaction with his son - in - law ’s compliance with the final court judgment granting him contact rights , in so far as he had been influencing the child in choosing the locations of their meetings and therefore he had not allowed him to spend time with his granddaughter at his home . The applicant and his granddaughter had enjoyed the time together , while the applicant ’s son - in - law had kept a low profile . Also the parties had agreed to allow the child and her grandfather to choose together the locations of their future meetings . At DATE the applicant ’s granddaughter had refused her father ’s proposal to travel back to her home in the company of her grandfather .

On DATE the bailiff accompanied once more the applicant to his granddaughter ’s home . The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the applicant and his granddaughter had agreed for the meeting to take place in a public location . The applicant and his son - in - law had a disagreement on whether the location of the meetings could have been chosen by the applicant on his own or only with the child ’s consent . The interaction between the applicant and his granddaughter had been short and the child had behaved apprehensively towards him because he had scolded her over the phone prior to their meeting . Subsequently , the applicant and his son - in - law had had a fight and the latter had taken his daughter and had left . Before leaving the applicant ’s son - in - law had stated that he had not complied with the judgment granting the applicant visiting rights because he had felt compelled , but as a result of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE , once more , the bailiff notified the applicant ’s sonin - law that he needed to comply with the domestic courts’ judgment and that a new meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on DATE . She also reiterated that she would proceed to enforce of the judgment as provided , among other things , by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG if he refused to comply . Moreover , she drew the applicant ’s son - in - law ’s attention to the provisions of LAW and informed him about the applicant ’s right under the last paragraph of Article CARDINAL to motion the courts to apply penalties if the child refused to comply even during those enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant asked the bailiff to cease the enforcement proceedings . In his written request he stated , among other things , that the judgment could not be enforced because his son - in - law had influenced his granddaughter . Moreover , his son - in - law had allegedly informed him that he would never allow his granddaughter to visit his home .

On DATE a bailiff located in the applicant ’s home town informed the Government that no enforcement file had been registered by his office concerning the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a second bailiff located in the applicant ’s home town informed the Government that the applicant had not asked him to enforce the final judgment granting him visiting rights . However , the aforementioned bailiff stated that an unknown person had spoken to him in DATE about a case similar to that of the applicant , but that after the discussion the person had left without returning . He had advised that person that the refusal of the child to have contact with him had been a problem and that the adult had to make efforts in order to rekindle the relationship with the child . At the same time he had advised that person to notify the child protection services and a psychologist in order to avoid any trauma for the child .

On DATE the bailiff employed by the applicant informed the Government that the applicant and his son - in - law had fought every time they had met . The applicant had been dissatisfied with his son - in - law ’s presence at the meetings and had accused him that he had not allowed the child to go to his home . At the same time , the applicant ’s granddaughter had obstinately refused to meet with her grandfather in her father ’s absence . During each meeting the bailiff had repeatedly tried to convince the child to meet with her grandfather in her father ’s absence , but she had refused .

DATE . On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s son - in - law that , following his request , the applicant had been warned not to visit his granddaughter ’s school , although he had spoken only to the teachers and had enquired about her schooling situation .

On DATE ORG informed the Government that they had not taken any steps in order to assist the applicant in the enforcement of his visiting rights because he had not asked them to assist him . Moreover , they acknowledged that the applicant ’s son - in - law had complained before them that the applicant had visited his granddaughter ’s school in breach of the visiting programme set out by the domestic courts . They also stated that the applicant ’s son - in - law had attached a number of documents to his complaint including copies of the operative part of the judgment setting out the applicant ’s visiting rights , a copy of the judgment dismissing the applicant ’s criminal complaint against his son - in - law and the reports prepared by the bailiff employed by the applicant on DATE and DATE .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL provided that a child had the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with his parents , relatives and other persons with whom he had developed a close connection . He also had a right to know his relatives and to maintain personal relations with them as well as with other persons with whom he had developed family relations if it did not affect his best interest . The child ’s parents or any other legal representative could not prohibit the child ’s contact with his grandparents , except in circumstances where a court had decided otherwise .

Article CARDINAL provided that the child ’s personal relationships could be maintained by meeting the person entitled to have contact with him at the child ’s or the aforementioned person ’s home .

On DATE Law no . CARDINAL was amended . Following its amendment LAW also provided among other things that the parent living with the child had a duty to help maintain the child ’s relationship with the other parent . In order to rekindle and maintain a child ’s personal relationships , the social protection or the child protection agencies had to provide professional counselling to both the child and his parents upon their request . If the parent living with the child obstructed the child ’s personal relations with the other parent by ignoring the schedule set out by the court or agreed on by the parties , the other parent could request the social assistance services from the child ’s home to monitor the situation for DATE . During the monitoring process the representatives of the social assistance services could attend the moment the parent not leaving with the child would take him from his home or return him and could interview the parents , the child or any other person either leaving with the child or not in order to produce a monitoring report . The monitoring report could recommend the extension of the monitoring period by a maximum of DATE , the psychological counselling of CARDINAL or both parents and a series of measures aimed at improving the child ’s relation with the parent with whom he was not living . The monitoring report could also be used as evidence before the court .

Following the amendment of PERSON no . CARDINAL on DATE was introduced . It provided that at the request of an interested person the domestic courts could order several measures , such as fines and security deposits , in order to secure the child ’s contact rights with other persons .

The relevant provisions concerning interlocutory measures , namely LAW , are set out in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL provided that an appeal on points of law suspended the enforcement of a judgment only in cases concerning the moving of land borders , destruction of constructions , crops or of any other fixed work as well as in cases expressly provided by law .

Article CARDINAL provided that the provisions of ORG applied only to trials and enforcement proceedings started after it had entered into force .

Article CARDINAL provided among other things that any interested party could contest the enforcement or the enforcement acts . The enforcement could also be contested if the bailiff refused to carry out an enforcement or to carry out an enforcement act according to law .

Articles CARDINAL provided among other things that if the debtor ignored the bailiff ’s notification to observe the creditor ’s contact rights , the bailiff could , at the creditor ’s request , ask the court to apply penalties on the debtor .

Article CARDINAL provided among other things that if the debtor failed to comply with his duties within DATE from the notification of the court order for penalties , the bailiff had to proceed with the enforcement . The enforcement had to be carried out in the presence of a representative of a child protection agency , and when the latter considered it necessary , in the presence of a psychologist assigned by him . If requested by the bailiff , public agents had to assist with the enforcement . Bullying or pressuring the child in order to successfully enforce a judgment was prohibited .

Article CARDINAL provided among other things that if the debtor was acting in bad faith and hid the child , the bailiff had to record the incident and inform the prosecutor ’s office attached to the court charged with the enforcement proceedings in order to open criminal proceedings against the debtor for failure to comply with a court judgment .

Article CARDINAL provided among other things that if the bailiff noted that the child himself categorically refused to leave the debtor or was hostile towards the creditor , he had to produce a report describing the situation . He also had to communicate the aforementioned report to the parties and to the representative of the child protection agency . The representative of the child protection agency had to motion the competent court from the child ’s home , for the court to set out , depending on the child ’s age , a schedule for psychological counselling sessions for a period no longer than DATE . The court had to examine the request urgently in a council chamber , by a final interlocutory judgment after summoning the parties and the person living with the child . The court - appointed psychologist had to produce a report at the end of the counselling sessions which had to be communicated to the court , the bailiff and to the child protection service . The bailiff had to resume the enforcement proceedings as provided by Article CARDINAL after receiving the psychologist ’s report . If the minor continued to refuse to comply , even during those enforcement proceedings , the creditor could ask the competent court from the child ’s home to order penalties .

Article CARDINAL provided among other things that the refusal of a parent to return a child without the consent of the other parent or the person enjoying custody rights in respect of the child was punishable by a prison sentence or by a fine . The same punishment could be applied in respect of the person who enjoyed custody rights if he or she had repeatedly prevented the child ’s parents from maintaining contact with their child as agreed by the parties or set out by a court .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

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

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

On an unknown date the applicant was charged with several offences and in particular uttering threats ( committed mostly in DATE ) .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to remand the applicant in custody . The prosecutor indicated that the applicant had failed to report for a court - ordered psychiatric observation . The applicant was arrested and placed in the hospital on DATE . However , he escaped DATE .

The applicant was remanded in custody on DATE and placed in the psychiatric ward of ORG . DATE and DATE he was under psychiatric observation . On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists gave an opinion and determined that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia . They observed that the applicant should be placed in a psychiatric hospital as there was a very high probability that he would commit another , similar offence .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The court , referring to the experts’ opinion , established that the applicant could not be held criminally responsible as he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia . It ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

The applicant ’s remand in custody was subsequently extended . On CARDINAL DATE a doctor confirmed that the applicant could be treated in the hospital wing of the detention facility until he could be transferred to a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE ORG Preventive Measures ( “ the Commission ” ) ruled that the applicant should be placed in ORG . On DATE the ORG asked the Commission to indicate FAC ( “ FAC ” ) as the hospital where the applicant should be placed , since sending him to ORG would make it difficult for him to maintain contact with his family . On DATE , the Commission recommended FAC .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the detention centre to FAC .

On DATE ORG , citing an expert opinion of DATE , confirmed that the applicant ’s condition had not changed and that it was necessary to keep him in the hospital . The applicant appealed . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the district court ’s decision .

Meanwhile , another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant ( charges of computer hacking committed in DATE ) was discontinued by ORG on DATE . The court held that the applicant could not be held criminally responsible . It further considered , citing a psychiatric opinion of CARDINAL DATE given by expert psychiatrists PERSON and PERSON that the applicant needed constant pharmacological treatment but he could be treated outside a psychiatric hospital .

At a session held on DATE ORG confirmed that the applicant ’s condition had not changed . Its decision given on DATE was identical to that of DATE . The court examined an expert opinion of DATE , signed by CARDINAL psychiatrists ( including PERSON ) and CARDINAL psychologists , who confirmed that the applicant should continue to be treated in a psychiatric hospital . The court also refused a request by the applicant ’s lawyer for experts to be appointed from outside the PERSON region . It further noted that the CARDINAL expert opinions ( of DATE ) could not be compared , as different circumstances had been examined in these CARDINAL sets of proceedings .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against this decision , claiming that PERSON ’s opinions were contradictory and that it had not been reliably shown that the applicant ’s continued detention was necessary . On DATE ORG upheld the district court ’s decision , concurring that the applicant ’s confinement should be extended .

On DATE and DATE ORG again extended the applicant ’s detention in a psychiatric hospital . These decisions were identical to the CARDINAL previous decisions . However , the court referred to fresh experts’ opinions , of DATE and DATE respectively . These decisions were upheld on DATE and DATE by ORG .

On DATE the ORG confirmed that the applicant ’s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued , basing this decision on an opinion of DATE . The court referred to the applicant ’s attempted escape of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE expert psychiatrists confirmed that the applicant should continue to be treated in hospital , as he was still completely uncritical as regards the acts he had committed and his illness .

On DATE the ORG confirmed that the applicant ’s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued . The court cited a fresh expert report and the applicant ’s attempted escape of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the district court ’s decision .

On DATE ORG , on the basis of an experts’ opinion of DATE , held that the applicant ’s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued . An appeal against this by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

In their opinions of CARDINAL May and DATE experts found that the reasons for applying the preventive measure remained . However , owing to the applicant ’s inappropriate behaviour ( harassment of other patients and uttering threats towards patients and the hospital staff ) they recommended that he be transferred to a different hospital . Nevertheless , on DATE ORG decided to keep the applicant in FAC . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE , upon a recommendation by ORG , ORG decided to place the applicant in LOC ( “ FAC ” ) . The applicant was transferred there on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists and a psychologist from the ORG region confirmed that the applicant did not see a need to continue treatment , he was uncritical about his illness , and there was a risk that he might commit yet another offence . Therefore , he should continue treatment in a secured psychiatric facility . Referring to this opinion , ORG decided to extend the applicant ’s confinement on DATE . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists and a psychologist held that the applicant ’s condition had deteriorated and there was still a risk that he might commit yet another offence . For these reasons it was necessary to continue his treatment in a secure psychiatric facility . Subsequently , on DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG decided to transfer the applicant to ORG – a high - security psychiatric facility . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against that decision . The court stressed , referring to a recent expert opinion that the applicant ’s condition had deteriorated since DATE . He was aggressive and threatened other patients and medical staff .

The applicant was transferred to ORG on DATE .

On DATE expert psychiatrists from the NORP region observed some improvement in the applicant ’s mental state . He was no longer threatening other patients and had not attempted to escape . However , the improvement was not permanent , and there was still a high risk that the applicant would commit another similar offence .

On DATE ORG again extended the applicant ’s detention . In view of the experts’ opinion it also ordered that the applicant be transferred to a less secure psychiatric facility - ORG .

According to the information available to ORG on the date of adoption of the present decision the applicant is still detained in a psychiatric hospital .

Conditions for the detention of persons of unsound mind who are not criminally responsible on medical grounds are laid down in LAW of DATE :

Article CARDINAL

“ The court may impose a preventive measure as provided for in this chapter , which involves committal to a secure medical institution only if necessary in order to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by an offender suffering from mental illness ... mental impairment or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs . Before imposing such a measure , the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . If an offender has committed a prohibited act in a state of insanity as specified in LAW , causing significant harm to the community , and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again , the court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution .

NORP The duration of the stay in the institution shall not be fixed in advance ; the court shall release the offender from the institution if his stay there is no longer deemed necessary .

The court may reorder the committal of an offender ( as specified in paragraph CARDINAL ) to a suitable psychiatric institution if it is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in paragraph CARDINAL or Article CARDINAL ; such an order may not be issued DATE after release from the institution . ”

Pursuant to LAW , as applicable from DATE , an offender and his defence lawyer may take part in a court hearing only if this is expressly provided by law .

Article CARDINAL , as applicable at the material time , provided :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall , no less frequently than DATE , and in the event of receiving an opinion that further detention of the offender in a secure medical institution in which a preventive measure is being executed is unnecessary , immediately make a decision as regards the further execution of that measure . If necessary , the court shall refer to the opinion of other medical experts .

A decision on the further execution of a preventive measure may be appealed against . ”

On DATE Article CARDINAL was amended to the effect that it now provides explicitly for the obligatory participation of a prosecutor ( always ) and a defence lawyer ( if the offender is deaf , mute or blind , or a minor , if there are justified doubts as to whether he could be held criminally responsible or if the court finds that the defence may be particularly difficult ) .


Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , stated that he is a national of GPE ( ORG ) and that he was born on DATE in the ORG . At the time of the introduction of the application , he was staying in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr W.H.M. Ummels , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , both of ORG .

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

On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE , submitting that he was a member of the Banyamulenge ( NORP ) community and that he hailed from GPE in the eastern part of the ORG where he had had problems with the ORG governmental armed forces . He further stated that he had travelled by car form the ORG to GPE on CARDINAL DATE , from where he had travelled by air , with a stopover at an unknown airport , to the GPE where he had arrived on DATE at GPE airport . He had never applied for or held a travel document or visa . The person who had accompanied him on his journey had shown documents on the applicant ’s behalf at control points . The only identity document he submitted was a ORG voter ’s pass issued on DATE by the PERSON electoral commission . The applicant stated that he had never held any other identity documents .

On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; “ the Minister ” ) rejected the applicant ’s asylum request . The Minister considered that the applicant ’s failure to substantiate in a sufficient manner his stated identity , nationality and travel itinerary as well as his failure to give a detailed , coherent and verifiable account of his journey to the GPE detracted from the credibility of his asylum account which , furthermore , lacked positive persuasiveness . Referring to the official report ( ambtsbericht ) on the ORG , drawn up by the GPE Minister of ORG in DATE , the Minister further found that the overall situation in the ORG was not such as to warrant accepting the applicant ’s asylum request .

On DATE , ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It considered that , although the situation in GPE fell within the scope of Article CARDINAL(c ) of Council Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( “ the LAW ” ) , a safe relocation alternative existed in GPE . Although possible , the applicant did not file a further appeal with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh asylum request , which was rejected by the Minister on DATE . Referring to the GPE official report on the ORG of DATE , the Minister held that the articles and reports relied on by the applicant did not lead to a different conclusion as to the lack of credibility of his asylum account and the possibility for him to settle elsewhere in the ORG .

On DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It held that , although the overall situation in the ORG had worsened since the decision of DATE on the applicant ’s first asylum request , it could not be said that there was systematic discrimination of GPE in the ORG and the applicant still had an alternative relocation possibility outside the GPE area . The applicant filed a further appeal against this decision as well as an accompanying request for a provisional measure , namely a stay of removal pending the proceedings on this further appeal .

On DATE , according to the applicant on the basis of the ORG voter ’s pass submitted by him in support of his asylum request , the ORG mission in GPE provided the GPE authorities with an “ attestation tenant lieu de passeport ” for the purposes of the applicant ’s removal to the ORG . This document was valid from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On an unspecified date , the applicant was informed that his removal to GPE ( ORG ) had been scheduled for DATE .

On DATE , the President of ORG granted the applicant ’s request for a provisional measure . Consequently , the applicant ’s scheduled removal was cancelled .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s further appeal on summary reasoning . It found that the further appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this ruling .

On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to indicate to the ORG , by way of an interim measure pursuant to LAW , that he should not be removed to GPE ( ORG ) .

On DATE the President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to the ORG for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . The President further decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government in accordance with LAW ( b ) of ORG and to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits .

On DATE , the respondent Government informed the ORG that , according to information received from the NORP authorities , the applicant had entered the LOC area in DATE , using a tourist visa issued by the NORP authorities and a NORP passport . Pending verification of this new information , the ORG sought an extension of the time - limit fixed for submission of their written observations . This request was granted by the President .

On DATE , the respondent Government informed the ORG that , given the doubts that had arisen as regard the applicant ’s origins , a language analysis would be carried out .

On DATE , a report was drawn up on the language analysis test carried out by ORG ) , a specialised unit of ORG ( Immigratie- en ORG ; “ IND ” ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . The conclusion of this language analysis was that the applicant was unequivocally identified as not originating from the ORG ( “ eenduidig niet herleidbaar to GPE ” ) but it was considered likely that he originated from the linguistic community in GPE ( “ waarschijnlijk herleidbaar tot de spraakgemeenschap binnen GPE ” ) .

According to a report issued by ORG ) of ORG on DATE , the ORG voter ’s pass submitted by the applicant to the GPE authorities had possibly not been drawn up and issued by a competent authority ( QUANTITY bevoegd opgemaakt en afgegeven ) but the document itself was “ with virtual certainty ” ( met aan zekerheid grenzende waarschijnlijkheid ) authentic .

On DATE , the respondent Government submitted their observations to which the applicant replied on DATE .

On DATE , the respondent Government submitted a print - out of a website - page of ORG ( Federale PERSON ) containing the details – including a digital passport photograph and particulars of the petitioner – of an accepted application for a tourist visa filed with the NORP authorities on DATE by Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in the ORG on DATE . The respondent Government also submitted a copy of the applicant ’s asylum application filed in the GPE , including a passport photograph of the applicant taken in that context .

The applicant ’s response to these materials was submitted on DATE .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON v. the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and § § DATE , DATE ) .

At the material time , the respondent ORG ’s policy on asylum - seekers from particular countries was devised by ORG and his successor , the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) , on the basis of official country assessment reports published by the Minister of ORG on the countries of origin of asylum - seekers .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG adopted a moratorium on decisions on asylum applications and expulsions ( besluit- en vertrekmoratorium ) for asylum - seekers of NORP origin hailing from the east of the ORG , including the provinces GPE and GPE .

The moratorium was lifted by the Deputy Minister on DATE . This policy decision , as published in ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , was based on the contents of an official country assessment report on the ORG released by the Minister of ORG on DATE . It was found in this report that there was no systemic , structural and organised discrimination of NORP in the ORG , that there was no structural violence in the ORG against the NORP population or other NORP with a NORP background and that NORP groups could obtain protection from the ORG authorities . Although the general situation in the provinces of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE in the eastern part of the ORG continued to be considered as falling within the scope of Article CARDINAL(c ) of the Qualification Directive , an internal protection alternative was found to be available in other parts of the ORG , including GPE , for asylum - seekers hailing from those provinces who did not qualify for refugee status within the meaning of the DATE LAW relating to ORG .


CASE OF SHAHANOV AND PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Pavlina Panova;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , is serving a life sentence in FAC .

Mr GPE , who was born in DATE , is serving a sentence of DATE imprisonment in FAC .

NORP In DATE , when serving his sentence in FAC , Mr PERSON was sharing a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . On DATE he made CARDINAL complaints to the Minister of Justice : CARDINAL written by him personally and CARDINAL written on his behalf by his wife . In the complaints he stated , inter alia , that another inmate in his ward , X , was bragging that CARDINAL prison officers , Y and Z , were relatives of his ; was threatening and intimidating the other inmates and fomenting intrigues and tension among them ; was often making unwarranted complaints to get special attention and treatment ; and was planning to escape from prison with the help of his relatives . Mr PERSON requested that steps be taken to move X to a prison where he did not have relatives .

An inquiry was opened pursuant to Mr PERSON ’s complaints , and written statements were taken from GPE , other inmates , Y , Z , and other prison officers .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences informed the governor of ORG that the inquiry had not found familial relationships or improper contacts between X and any of the prison officers , or a risk for Mr GPE . The letter went on to say that the governor should advise all inmates that making defamatory statements about , or false allegations against , prison officers was a disciplinary offence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Sentences and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the governor of ORG ordered that Mr PERSON be placed in solitary confinement for DATE for making defamatory statements and false allegations against prison officers , contrary to the above - mentioned provision .

On DATE Mr PERSON sought judicial review of the order .

The GPE ORG heard Mr PERSON ’s claim on DATE and , in a final decision of the same date ( опр. oт CARDINAL г. по ч. PERSON д. № DATE г. , РС-Пловдив ) , upheld the order . It held that it was lawful and that , in view of the results of the inquiry carried out pursuant to Mr PERSON ’s complaints and the evidence gathered in the proceedings before it , the prison governor had been correct to find that Mr PERSON had made defamatory statements and false allegations against prison officers . The court went on to say that the punishment matched the seriousness of the offence .

Mr PERSON asserted that his correspondence was routinely opened and read by the prison authorities . In support of his assertion , he submitted CARDINAL letters sent in DATE , CARDINAL of which were addressed to his counsel , whose envelopes bore the stamp “ checked ” on their backs . For their part , the Government submitted a letter from the administration of FAC according to which Mr PERSON ’s correspondence was being controlled in the manner envisaged in the applicable regulations , which meant that the prison authorities only checked the physical content of the letters , not their text . All letters were sealed and opened by a prison officer in front of the prisoner . The stamp “ checked ” affixed on the back of an envelope only meant that the letter had been physically inspected for the presence of prohibited items .

On DATE Mr PERSON was visited by CARDINAL journalists . At the same time , a fellow inmate of NORP nationality also had a visitor . After the visits , Mr GPE learned that his visitors had been treated rudely , and that his fellow inmate ’s visitor had had personal items stolen from lockers in the prison where he had left them during the visit .

DATE , DATE , with the help of another inmate who knew NORP , Mr PERSON wrote the following complaint to the governor of PERSON :

“ On DATE , during the TIME visit , personal items of visitors were stolen from the NORP lockers , which are only accessible to the guards . The stolen items are a mobile telephone case , MPCARDINAL headphones , a mobile telephone battery , and a sum of money . Also , the guards behaved very rudely and coarsely with the visitors , yelling at them and insulting them for no reason . Could you please carry out an inquiry into the conduct of that shift , and take measures to ensure that the guards work in a disciplined way and with respect towards inmates and others . ”

Disciplinary proceedings were opened against Mr GPE in relation to that complaint . On DATE a hearing took place before the prison ’s disciplinary commission .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE , the governor of PERSON noted that an inquiry carried out pursuant to Mr PERSON ’s complaint had shown that the CARDINAL persons who had visited him had not left any items in the GPE lockers , and had not made any complaints about missing items on their way out of the prison . There was no evidence that they had been treated rudely by prison staff either . By making allegations to that effect , PERSON ORG had therefore acted contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Sentences and ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The nature and the gravity of the offence , Mr PERSON ’s attitude towards his act , and his overall conduct and state of health militated in favour of punishing him with CARDINAL months’ deprivation of the right to receive food parcels from outside prison .

Mr PERSON appealed to the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences and sought judicial review . He argued , inter alia , that his disciplinary punishment was in breach of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and this ORG ’s case - law , that deprivation of the right to receive food parcels was a serious sanction in view of the insufficient quantity of food provided by the prison , and that it was an attempt to cow him into not making complaints against the prison administration .

On DATE the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences dismissed the appeal . Noting that the inquiry into PERSON ORG ’s allegations had not confirmed any of them , he found that , by deliberately making false allegations , the applicant had committed the disciplinary offence under section PERSON ) of LAW . The sanction fully corresponded to the nature and the gravity of his act , his attitude towards it , and his previous conduct .

In a final decision of DATE ( опр. от CARDINAL г. по н. ч. д. № DATE г. , СРС ) , GPE held that it could not deal with Mr PERSON ’s claim for judicial review , as only orders imposing solitary confinement were amenable to such review . All other types of disciplinary punishments were only subject to appeal before the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant and S.S. ( “ the respondent ” ) married in DATE . Their son PERSON was born in DATE . They lived in the respondent ’s GPE house in a neighbourhood of GPE .

In DATE the applicant moved to her GPE house in the same neighbourhood . GPE continued living with his father and his paternal grandparents .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for interim custody with the competent first - instance court .

On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant ’s request for interim custody , but granted her extensive access rights in respect of the child pending the final outcome of the custody proceedings . This interim access order was immediately enforceable .

It appears that the interim access order was respected , with some resistance on the part of the child , until DATE , when the child ran away from the applicant during a visit and went back to the respondent ’s house .

On DATE the enforcement judge ordered enforcement of the said access order . After several failed attempts by the applicant to spend time with the child in accordance with the order , the enforcement judge sent a bailiff on CARDINAL and DATE to make an unannounced visit to monitor the applicant ’s attempt to make contact with the child . During the visit , the bailiff informed the enforcement judge that the respondent had brought the child to the front gate of the house , but the child had refused to leave with the applicant , even after the respondent tried to persuade him , and had gone back inside . After receiving the report , the enforcement judge scheduled an enforcement hearing for DATE .

On DATE the enforcement judge ordered a child support team from ORG school to implement a system of psychological preparation to assist the child ’s acceptance of contact with his mother .

On DATE the enforcement judge asked ORG to contemplate initiating corrective monitoring of the respondent ’s exercise of parental rights in the light of the respondent ’s substantial influence on the child ’s hostility toward his mother .

On DATE ORG placed the respondent under formal corrective supervision ( korektivni nadzor nad vršenjem roditeljskog prava ) . On DATE ORG , with the approval of the enforcement judge , applied the same measure to the applicant so as to enhance the GPE collaboration with a view to satisfying the child ’s emotional needs .

In the meantime , on DATE , the enforcement judge heard a psychologist working with the child . The psychologist advised the judge that interviewing the child within the proceedings would not be in his best interest .

Due to the respondent ’s failure to prepare the child appropriately for the contact with his mother , on CARDINAL DATE the enforcement judge ordered the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) and on DATE a fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG , both within DATE . On DATE the competent second - instance court rejected the respondent ’s appeals against the fines . On DATE and DATE , after the failure of the applicant to pay the fines , the enforcement judge ordered their mandatory enforcement .

On DATE the ORG asked the enforcement judge to postpone enforcement of the access order for DATE in view of the pending parental therapy . The ORG further asked for , and the judge approved , a further DATE of therapy , stating that an improvement in the child ’s attitude as well as in the GPE relationship had been achieved . The ORG also proposed to the applicant and the respondent to stay the ongoing court proceedings until the therapy had ended . They observed that the court proceedings , in which the parents acted as opponents , jeopardised the progress achieved to date . It would appear that the applicant and the respondent did not accept this recommendation .

The parental therapy , which at that time had already lasted for DATE , included CARDINAL sessions in which ORG professionals continuously and intensively worked with the applicant , the respondent , the child and the paternal grandparents to reach mutually acceptable arrangements and enforce the interim measures in line with the best interest of the child .

On DATE the custody judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the decision on interim custody rights came to an end . The enforcement proceedings were later formally terminated by the enforcement judge on DATE . The enforcement judge , however , explicitly ordered continuation of the enforcement in respect of the fine of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a new request for interim custody after ORG ( ORG zdravlje , hereafter “ ORG ” ) conducted an examination of the parental capacity of both parties at the request of the first - instance court . The ORG report recommended that custody be awarded to the applicant .

On DATE the first - instance court granted interim custody to the applicant and ordered the respondent immediately to surrender the child to her . It also quashed the part of the interim order of DATE containing its decision not to grant custody to the applicant . The rest of the interim access order remained in force .

On DATE the enforcement court ordered enforcement of the interim custody order . The respondent appealed on DATE , claiming that the child himself did not want to live with the applicant . The appeal was rejected on DATE .

The first attempt to reunite the applicant with the child took place on DATE . The enforcement judge , a bailiff , several representatives of ORG , CARDINAL uniformed policemen , CARDINAL plain clothes policemen , the applicant and her lawyer all entered the courtyard of the respondent ’s house , expecting that the child would be surrendered . The judge and the ORG ’s representatives explained to the child in front of the others that he should leave and go with his mother to her house , but the child rejected the planned reunion and went back inside . The respondent allegedly would not allow the enforcement to take place in the house . He maintained that he had informed the child that various officials would come , but had not prepared him for reunion . The applicant refused forceful removal of the child . The enforcement judge noted that the child was not yet prepared for a transfer of custody and postponed the enforcement until DATE at ORG LOC . The enforcement judge asked the parties and ORG representative to prepare the child adequately for the next reunion .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the enforcement judge adjourned the custody transfer scheduled for those dates as it was awaiting an opinion from ORG regarding the formal corrective supervision of the respondent , as requested in the interim access enforcement proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The enforcement judge re - scheduled the transfer of custody for CARDINAL DATE at ORG LOC . The attempt of transfer was conducted in the presence of the enforcement judge , the psychologist , the psychiatrist and the lawyer from ORG and police officers . The child again refused to be separated from his father . The police explained that they could not forcefully remove the respondent from the premises to enable the social experts and the judge to facilitate a conversation with the child in his absence , since the child was clinging on the father , crying and refusing to let him go . It appears that the applicant was also against the use of force ( according to a report to the enforcement judge by ORG of DATE , the applicant refused the possibility of the use of force throughout the proceedings ) . ORG recommended that psychotherapeutic support be provided for the child . The enforcement of the custody transfer was postponed . Shortly afterwards , the respondent was placed under the corrective supervision of ORG ( see para . CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the enforcement judge held a hearing which appears to have been the last one within these enforcement proceedings .

The applicant petitioned the enforcement judge to fine the respondent for obstructing her contact with the child , hoping that this would compel him to surrender the child .

On DATE the enforcement judge imposed on the respondent a fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG for failing to appropriately psychologically prepare the child for the reunification . It would appear that the fine has been paid .

On DATE and DATE ORG informed the enforcement judge that its psychological therapies in respect of the family in question had produced no results ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . According to their reports , it became clear that the respondent had cooperated in form only and had in fact failed to take steps to encourage the child to have substantive contact with the applicant .

On DATE the custody judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final and the decision on interim custody rights came to an end . From that moment , efforts to enforce the final custody judgment commenced ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the enforcement judge formally terminated the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim requesting the dissolution of her marriage with ORG , sole custody of GPE and maintenance .

On DATE the first - instance court dissolved the applicant ’s marriage , granted her sole custody of ORG and specified the respondent ’s access rights .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the second - instance court and ORG , respectively , upheld this judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with ORG ( ORG ) . She relied on various ORG of the LAW , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL LAW on the Rights of the LAW . She sought redress for the protracted length of the custody and subsequent criminal proceedings and the non - enforcement of the judicial interim access and custody decisions in her favour which , she claimed , violated her rights to a fair trial and to family life . She also complained that she had not had any legal avenue available to expedite those proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

As regards the protracted length of the custody proceedings , ORG considered that the first - instance court had acted diligently , without any substantial periods of inactivity . It found the case to have been particularly complex , as the expert findings regarding the best interests of the child had conflicted with the latter ’s own wish as to who to live with .

It also found that the non - enforcement of the interim access and custody orders during the same period had been attributable to the particular complexity of the case , as the child had objected to being reunited with the applicant . It found that the enforcement court had undertaken , without any delay , all necessary measures , including fining the respondent , for the purpose of enforcing effectively the applicant ’s rights .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE became enforceable on DATE and the enforcement order was issued on DATE .

The first forcible transfer of custody was scheduled for DATE , but the child refused any kind of contact with the applicant . The court noted that the respondent had failed to prepare the child for reunion . The applicant explicitly refused to countenance the use of force against the respondent and the child as the means of enforcement . The enforcement was therefore adjourned .

NORP On DATE , upon the initiative of ORG , the applicant and the respondent signed an Agreement on Access Rights designed to assist the re - establishing of contact between the applicant and PERSON in order to facilitate the enforcement of the custody judgment .

Despite this agreement , on DATE the enforcement court imposed a fine on the respondent in the amount of ORG CARDINAL because of his failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It also ruled that the respondent was to be given DATE from the date of receipt of that order to surrender the child voluntarily to the applicant and with the added condition that , should he fail to do so , he would have to pay a further fine of FAC . The respondent did not comply with the order and it seems that the fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG was subsequently imposed and paid .

The court scheduled a new forcible transfer of custody for DATE . In preparation for the enforcement , ORG psychologist drew up a detailed plan of action . The psychologist ’s assessment , after working with the child , was that such a transfer would be impossible or highly traumatic for the child and the enforcement was postponed once again .

On DATE the respondent filed a claim for revision of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , seeking sole custody of MONEY He also requested an interim custody order to the same effect .

On DATE the ORG provided the first - instance court with an expert opinion . ORG acknowledged that there had been no mechanisms available to facilitate a forcible physical transfer of child custody to the applicant in view of the respondent ’s refusal . According to the report , the only feasible proposal would be for the child to continue living with his father . Even though , taking into account the chronology of events , parental capacity , justice and equity , the opposite proposal would be more appropriate , it could propose only this arrangement “ not as an expression of their wish , but as the sole solution which is possible to impose and enforce in practice ” . A change of residence would in any event have a negative impact on the child ’s development .

On DATE the first - instance court granted sole custody to the respondent , ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance and specified the applicant ’s access rights as TIME every weekend , as well as specified periods of school holidays .

On DATE and DATE the applicant filed criminal complaints against the respondent for parental child abduction and continuous non - compliance with the interim access and custody orders . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the competent prosecutor ’s office charged the applicant with those crimes . None of the scheduled hearings was held . In DATE the first - instance court stayed the criminal proceedings as the prosecutor ’s office had dropped the charges . The applicant subsequently took over the prosecution as subsidiary prosecutor . On DATE the first - instance court , in a reasoned judgment , acquitted the respondent . It found , on the basis of numerous testimonies , CARDINAL expert opinions , CARDINAL expert reports from the civil proceedings case - file and other documentary evidence that the respondent always made the child available for enforcement , that he never physically or verbally , actively or passively obstructed enforcement at any point , and that there were no indications that the child ever showed signs that he was under pressure or undue influence not to have contact with his mother . On DATE the second - instance court upheld this judgment .

It would appear that the applicant and her son have re - established contact with each other since the signing of ORG and the revision of the custody judgment of DATE . It would appear that they have been meeting DATE for TIME without supervision . The child still lives with the respondent .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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


CASE OF KONDRAKHIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country)

André Potocki;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In applications nos . CARDINAL , FAC and DATE , the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .