Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No 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);No 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 - Free legal assistance;Insufficient means);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived before his arrest in GPE , a village in the FAC region .

On or around DATE the applicant sold drugs to B. and O.

On DATE B. and ORG sold a quantity of those drugs to PERSON . , a police officer taking part in an undercover operation .

In DATE the GPE branch of ORG ( “ FSKN ” ) instituted criminal proceedings against B. and O. When questioned they submitted that they had purchased drugs from the applicant , who lived in GPE .

On DATE the FSKN instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered a “ test purchase ” from him , to be carried out with the help of B. and CARDINAL undercover police officers , PERSON . and P.

The covert operation took place DATE in a hotel in GPE , where PERSON . had booked a room . Audio recording devices were installed in the room and the hotel was placed under surveillance . The applicant alleged that during the operation the police had poisoned him with an unknown substance , which had resulted in him being admitted to a prison hospital .

According to the arrest record drafted at TIME on DATE , police arrested the applicant in the hallway of the eighth floor of the hotel on the grounds that “ witnesses and eyewitnesses indicated that the applicant had committed a criminal offence ” . The record also indicated that immediately after his arrest the applicant had been apprised of his right to be assisted by counsel and that he had been searched . The search and its results were described as follows :

“ ... PERSON was asked to hand over of his own free will any powerful narcotic substances ... he had been keeping on himself unlawfully , money acquired illegally ... In reply to the investigator ’s request , PERSON explained that he had none of those things except money , which he had made illegally from selling a narcotic substance , heroin , in a quantity of CARDINAL grams . He also explained that the money he had made illegally was in his bag , and submitted that he wished to give it [ to the investigator ] of his own free will . As a result of the personal search , PERSON ORG took the money out of his bag voluntarily ... ”

According to the applicant , investigator PERSON refused to provide him with a lawyer immediately after his arrest on the grounds that no investigating activities were being carried out in respect of him , therefore he did not need a lawyer . The applicant also stated that he had not been questioned on DATE of his arrest .

According to the arrest record , which he had signed , the applicant had made no comments concerning its contents or any other matters , and his wife had been notified of his arrest over the telephone .

Following the personal search , the investigator seized other money found in his pockets along with his identity papers , mobile phone and some other items . The personal search was photographed .

On DATE the investigator ordered fingerprint and palm print chemical expert reports . The applicant ’s fingerprints and palm prints were taken . The applicant alleged that he had not been informed of the request for these reports or their results . He had only learnt of the expert analyses while reviewing the criminal case file in DATE .

On DATE the investigator started questioning the applicant as a suspect . According to the interrogation report , lawyer Or . was present during questioning . The applicant alleged that he had refused to give a statement for health reasons , whereas the interrogation report stated that he had invoked his right not to incriminate himself and refused to testify . According to the interrogation report , which he had signed , the applicant had no comments concerning its contents or any other matters .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) remanded the applicant in custody . He alleged that counsel Or . had not represented him properly at that hearing . His detention was extended on several subsequent occasions . He remained in detention until his conviction on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with drug offences and questioned in the presence of counsel I. It is apparent from the record of that interview duly signed by him that he had understood the charges against him and denied all of them . He refused to make a statement .

On DATE new charges were brought against the applicant in the presence of his counsel . He was charged with CARDINAL counts of drug trafficking , namely unlawfully acquiring , transporting and possessing drugs with intent to sell , and selling drugs to B. and O. in DATE and PERSON . on DATE .

On DATE ORG returned the criminal case to the prosecutor because the applicant had not had sufficient time to review the criminal case file . In DATE he finished doing so .

The trial took place in LOC DATE . The applicant was represented by counsel PERSON and NORP The court heard him and several witnesses , and examined the pre - trial statements of absent witnesses as well as physical evidence .

The applicant denied all the charges against him . He testified , in particular , that he had met PERSON in DATE and had helped him to buy fish wholesale . On DATE they had met because PERSON had brought some money he had owed him and had wanted to arrange another purchase of fish from him with PERSON .

During the examination of the first set of charges against the applicant , namely unlawfully acquiring and possessing drugs and selling drugs to B. and O. in DATE , ORG heard , and the applicant questioned , ORG , Av . , GPE . , ORG . , Iv . and PERSON . as witnesses .

Witness O. testified that in DATE he and PERSON had gone to GPE from GPE and had bought fish from the applicant . Later , the applicant had contacted them and said that he could supply more fish . They had gone to GPE again , where PERSON had bought drugs from someone . At the end of the investigation of the criminal case against him and PERSON , the police had asked them , in exchange for a more lenient sentence , to go to GPE again and incite the applicant to sell them drugs . He had refused , whereas B. had agreed .

O. ’s testimony in court contradicted his earlier statements made during the pre - trial investigation and the prosecutor asked to have his pretrial statement read out in court . The applicant did not object to this request and it was granted .

It was apparent from ORG ’s pre - trial statement that he and his business partner PERSON had been buying fish in GPE and selling it in GPE . In DATE , during their stay in GPE , B. had met the applicant , who had promised to help them purchase some fish . In DATE they had again been in GPE , where they had bought heroin from the applicant and transported it to GPE .

Witness Av . , a police officer , testified that he had taken part in the planning of the covert operation in DATE and had been present at the time of the applicant ’s arrest and personal search . He had heard the applicant say at the time of his arrest that he had made money from selling drugs .

Witnesses Le . and ORG . , police officers from the GPE police department , submitted that they had taken part in B. and O. ’s arrest in DATE after they had tried to sell drugs to an undercover police officer .

Witness Iv . submitted that in DATE police had asked him to be an attesting witness during a search of PERSON ’s apartment in GPE .

Witness PERSON . submitted that in DATE police had asked him to be an attesting witness in the covert operation .

The prosecutor submitted CARDINAL requests to have PERSON summoned as a witness ; however , according to medical documents submitted to ORG , PERSON could not attend the hearing because he had a serious oncological condition ( cancer ) and accompanying speech problems . ORG then granted the prosecutor ’s request , despite the applicant ’s objections , to have PERSON ’s pre - trial statement read out and admitted as evidence .

Witness PERSON testified in his pre - trial statement that his business partner PERSON had introduced him to the applicant in DATE . The applicant had agreed to be an intermediary in his business , which involved supplying fish in GPE . On or around DATE B. and O. had come to GPE to buy fish . The applicant , however , had not had enough fish for them . B. had serious financial difficulties so O. had suggested buying drugs from the applicant . O. had assured PERSON that he had an established drug distribution network in GPE and that he would help PERSON to sell drugs within DATE to resolve his financial troubles . That had been the first time B. had learnt that the applicant sold drugs . On or DATE the applicant had sold QUANTITY of heroin to B. and O. They had then transported it to GPE . The police had arrested them there when they had been trying to sell heroin .

ORG also read out and admitted pre - trial statements of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses as evidence .

Witness NORP testified in his statement that in DATE he had organised and supervised the covert operation during which B. and ORG had sold drugs to undercover officer PERSON .

Witness PERSON . testified that he had gone undercover to buy drugs from B. and O. during the covert operation in DATE . He described the manner in which it had been carried out .

Attesting witnesses PERSON , NORP and PERSON testified in their statements that in DATE the police had asked them to serve as attesting witnesses in the undercover operation , during which they had observed the manner in which the test purchase had been carried out in respect of B. and O.

During the examination of the second set of charges against the applicant ORG questioned QUANTITY police officers ( PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON . ) and CARDINAL attesting witnesses .

Witness Sh . submitted that in DATE he had taken part in the test purchase from the applicant . B. had identified the applicant as the dealer . During the covert operation he and PERSON had met the applicant several times in the hotel room . At their last meeting the applicant had sold PERSON . QUANTITY of heroin .

Witness PERSON testified that he had been responsible for monitoring the undercover operation in respect of the applicant in DATE .

Witness PERSON . testified that he had arrested the applicant immediately after the test purchase , and that he had said at the time of his arrest that he had made money from selling drugs .

Witnesses PERSON . and Ba . testified that the police had asked them to serve as attesting witnesses in the undercover operation , during which they had observed the manner in which the test purchase had been carried out in respect of the applicant .

ORG also read out a pre - trial statement of absent witness B.

B. testified that he had agreed to take part in the test purchase from the applicant . A police officer , ORG . , had been designated as the buyer . In late PERSON had called the applicant to inform him that he had already sold the drugs to a certain person , someone who was interested in buying more drugs from him , but as wished to do so in person he would come to GPE . The applicant had agreed and said that he would arrange the deal .

B. then described in detail how the covert operation had been carried out DATE . In particular , he had called the applicant several times over DATE to arrange a meeting with him . On DATE the applicant had come to their hotel and B. had introduced him to Sh . , who had asked the applicant to supply him with QUANTITY of heroin and discussed other terms of the deal . The applicant had said that he could only get QUANTITY of heroin and they had agreed to meet DATE . On DATE the applicant had come to their hotel and said that he had contacted the dealers and that they would call him back . They had all stayed in the hotel room until the applicant had received a telephone call . The applicant told them that he would bring the heroin DATE . On DATE the applicant had come to their hotel with QUANTITY of heroin . When PERSON . had asked him about the remaining amount , the applicant had explained that he could bring more in DATE . However , he had QUANTITY on him for personal use so PERSON . had agreed to buy that too . PERSON . had handed money over to the applicant , who had said that he would go downstairs to get change . When he had left the room he had been arrested by the police .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment , after finding him guilty of drug offences , in particular the sale of drugs to PERSON in DATE and PERSON . on DATE . The court admitted the following material as evidence :

( i ) the statements made during trial by ORG , Av . , GPE . , ORG . , Iv . and PERSON . and the pre - trial statements of PERSON , NORP , PERSON . , PERSON , NORP and Z ;

( ii ) the statements made during trial by PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON . and Ba . and the pre - trial statement of B.

( iii ) a record of the examination of the banknotes used to buy drugs from the applicant ;

( iv ) the test purchase record ;

( v ) the arrest record of DATE ;

( vi ) a transcript of the audio recording made in the course of the test purchase ;

( vii ) forensic chemical examination reports of substances seized at the crime scene ;

( viii ) a forensic examination report of the applicant ’s palm prints .

The court did not examine the forensic report of the applicant ’s fingerprints or admit it as evidence .

The forensic examination report of the applicant ’s palm prints showed that the applicant had had no drug residue on his palms .

ORG did not use the applicant ’s interrogation report of DATE as evidence .

In his appeal against the conviction the applicant complained , among other things , that the trial court had not ensured the presence of a key prosecution witness , B.

On DATE ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) upheld the applicant ’s conviction . It held that according to medical certificates , PERSON was suffering from cancer and could not speak . The trial court had therefore lawfully decided that his situation could be considered to be “ other exceptional circumstances ” which had prevented him from appearing at the hearing , and that his testimony could be read out in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant applied to the Presidium of ORG for a supervisory review of his conviction .

On DATE it examined the applicant ’s case by way of supervisory review . Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing . The ORG amended the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE in so far as the applicant ’s actions on DATE had been classed as a drug offence , and held that his actions should have been classed as an attempt to commit a drug offence . It upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) referred the case to the Presidium of ORG for examination on the merits , at the request of ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review , on the grounds that the applicant had not been duly informed of the date of the hearing , and had therefore been unable to attend . It remitted the case to the Presidium of ORG for fresh examination .

On DATE the applicant requested the Presidium of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to provide him with legal aid counsel for the hearing before it . He claimed that he had insufficient means to pay for a lawyer .

On DATE the ORG examined the criminal case against the applicant by way of supervisory review . He was present at the hearing and was assisted by legal aid counsel ORG

The applicant objected to the panel of the ORG on the grounds that it had already examined his case by way of supervisory review on CARDINAL DATE . The ORG dismissed this objection , finding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed on procedural grounds . There was therefore no reason to exclude these judges from the new examination of the case .

The applicant submitted on the merits of the case that at the time of his arrest he had not been informed of his rights or provided with a lawyer and that the record of his arrest had been forged . He also had not received a copy of the arrest record or been able to question key prosecution witness PERSON at the trial .

Having examined the case file , the ORG found that the applicant ’s grounds of appeal were unsubstantiated . In particular , it held that the arrest record of DATE had been duly authenticated and signed by the applicant , who had been informed of his rights , including the right to be represented by counsel . He did not however request that counsel be instructed or make any comments in the record . The ORG also noted that statements by prosecution witnesses had been read out at trial in accordance with the law .

The ORG amended the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE , held that the applicant ’s actions on DATE should have been classed as an attempt to commit a drug offence , and upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .

By a decision issued on DATE the ORG ordered the recovery of counsel ’s fees in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) from the applicant for the representation in the supervisory review proceedings .

In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE during the following periods :

( a ) DATE ;

( b ) DATE and DATE ;

( c ) DATE and DATE ; and

( d ) DATE and DATE .

During the first CARDINAL periods the applicant was detained in different cells . All of them were overcrowded and infested with insects . They measured QUANTITY each and contained CARDINAL bunk beds . He did not have an individual sleeping place and inmates had to take turns to sleep . Some cells were not equipped with ventilation system , while in others it was not working . The electric lighting was always on . The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cells .

During his last period of detention the applicant was detained in cell CARDINAL located in the basement . He was not provided with any bedding or cooking utensils . Remand prison officers told him that he should have brought his own bedding . The cell was very cold and damp . Since he did not have any bedding he was obliged to sleep in his clothes . The windows were closed all the time and let in no daylight . The cell was never ventilated . The toilet was in the corner of the cell and offered no privacy . The dining table was very close to the toilet . The cell was infested with insects . Detainees could take a TIME shower once a week .

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-CARDINAL in the FAC region to serve his sentence . It appears that in DATE he was transferred to correctional colony IK-CARDINAL , also in the GPE region .

The applicant submitted that the authorities of IK-CARDINAL and IK-CARDINAL had opened and read a number of the ORG ’s letters to him , in particular CARDINAL dated DATE acknowledging receipt of his application and giving him further information on the conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , and others dated DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE . The applicant provided the ORG with copies of these letters . All of them had been stamped by the colony authorities .

The applicant also submitted that the colony authorities had delayed in sending the ORG ’s letters to him .

DATE . The Government claimed that during his detention in IK-CARDINAL and IK-CARDINAL the applicant had sent CARDINAL letter to the ORG and had received CARDINAL letters from the ORG . The receipt and dispatch of letters had been properly recorded in the prison log book . Some letters addressed to the applicant had been opened for registration purposes only . They had not been censored and had been handed over to the applicant in their entirety . CARDINAL letter had been forwarded to the applicant after a DATE delay due to an omission by CARDINAL of the prison employees who had been duly reprimanded in the intervening period .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

NORP The applicant , PERSON ( PERSON oğlu PERSON ) , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP The applicant had been granted legal aid and was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

At TIME on DATE , after having participated in a robbery with another person , the applicant voluntarily appeared at a police station . According to the applicant , on arrival at the police station he was arrested .

At TIME on DATE the investigator in charge of the case drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest as a suspect ( tutma haqqında protokol ) . The record was signed by the investigator and the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of robbery as defined under LAW . On DATE the prosecutor requested that the preventive measure of remand in custody be applied in respect of the applicant .

At TIME on DATE the Sumgayit City Court granted the prosecutor ’s request and remanded the applicant in custody for a period of DATE . The court also held that the beginning of the detention was to be calculated from DATE .

According to the applicant , at the hearing before the first - instance court his lawyer complained that under domestic law , a suspect should not be detained for CARDINAL , but the court left the complaint without consideration . However , according to the record of the hearing DATE the content of which was not disputed by the applicant – held in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , the lawyer only asked the court not to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant because he was young and had confessed to the crime .

The applicant did not appeal against ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a request with ORG , asking the court to place the applicant under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody . He submitted that the applicant had voluntarily presented himself to the police , that there was no risk of his absconding , that he was suffering from a kidney disease , and that he was a student .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody . It appears from the record of the hearing that the applicant ’s lawyer raised the same arguments in support of the request during the hearing in the court .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In his appeal , the applicant asked the court to replace his detention on remand with house arrest , noting that , when ordering his pre - trial detention , the court had not taken into consideration the fact that he had no criminal record , that he had voluntarily given himself up to the police , as well as his state of health and other personal circumstances . The applicant also complained about his detention as a suspect from DATE , claiming that he had not been brought before a judge within TIME of his arrest as required by domestic law .

On DATE ORG partially granted the appeal and replaced the applicant ’s remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest . The appellate court ’s decision made no mention of the part of the complaint relating to the applicant ’s alleged unlawful detention in excess of the maximum DATE period .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) concerning arrest on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence are described in detail in the ORG ’s judgments in PERSON v. GPE ( no . PERSON , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Chapter LII of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings may challenge actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities before a court . Article CARDINAL provides that a victim or his counsel may challenge actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities concerning , inter alia , arrest and detention on remand or violation of the rights of an arrested person . The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities’ actions or decisions may quash them if he or she finds them to be unlawful ( Article CARDINAL ) . The judge ’s decision may be challenged before an appellate court in accordance with the procedure established in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP.


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was ( to her knowledge ) born in DATE and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in PERSON , ORG .

The applicant entered GPE in an irregular manner by boat on CARDINAL DATE . Upon arrival , she was registered by the immigration police , given an identification number ( DATE ) , and presented with CARDINAL documents in LANGUAGE , one containing a Return Decision and the other a Removal Order .

The Return Decision stated that she was a prohibited immigrant by virtue of LAW ) because she was in GPE “ without means of subsistence and liable to become a charge on public funds ” . ORG also informed the applicant that her stay was being terminated and that she had the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure . LAW was based on the consideration that the applicant ’s request for a period of voluntary departure had been rejected . It informed the applicant that she would remain in custody until removal was effected , and that an entry ban would be issued against her . The CARDINAL documents further informed the applicant of her right to appeal against ORG before ORG ( “ the IAB ” ) within DATE .

According to the applicant , the contents of the decision in LANGUAGE were not explained to her , although she could not understand the language . According to the Government , in practice the immigration police inform the migrants verbally in LANGUAGE about their right to appeal , and the migrants translate for each other .

The applicant was further provided with an information leaflet entitled “ Your entitlements , responsibilities and obligations while in detention ” in LANGUAGE , a language she did not understand . According to the Government the applicant did not request a booklet in another language .

In accordance with LAW ( see Relevant domestic law ) , the applicant was detained in FAC .

During the registration process upon her arrival , in the absence of an interpreter , the applicant ’s age was recorded as CARDINAL ( born DATE ) . She claims to have told the authorities that she was DATE . According to the Government , it emerged from the authorities’ records ( not submitted to ORG ) that the applicant declared that she was born in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against ORG . By DATE of the introduction of the application ( DATE ) , no date had been set for her appeal hearing by the ORG .

DATE following her arrival the applicant was called for an information session provided by the staff of ORG . She was assisted in submitting FAC ( ORG ) , thereby registering her wish to apply for asylum under LAW , LAW of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . She stated on the form that she was DATE .

On an unspecified date DATE after her arrival in GPE , the applicant was called for an interview with a member of ORG ( AWAS ) staff , who informed her that as she had claimed to be DATE she would be interviewed by CARDINAL members of ORG staff with a view to assessing the veracity of her claim that she was a minor .

DATE , CARDINAL people from AWAS interviewed her . During the interview a male detainee provided interpretation services . After the interview they informed her that as they could not confirm her minor age through the interview they would send her for a further age verification ( ORG ) test - an X - ray of the bones of the wrist . The applicant was taken for the ORG test DATE after her interview , on DATE .

At DATE , as the applicant had not received any decision from the ORG , she asked a woman from ORG ( who was visiting the detention centre to conduct interviews with other detainees who had health problems ) whether she knew anything about her case . The woman told her that her X - ray was being assessed and if she was found to be a minor she would be released soon . DATE , on DATE , some other people from AWAS went to the centre and told her that according to the test she was not a minor but an adult . During the latter meeting a fellow ( female ) detainee provided translation .

By DATE of the lodging of the application the applicant had not received a written decision informing her of the outcome of the age assessment procedure . According to the Government a decision on the applicant ’s age was taken on DATE ; no date was submitted regarding notification . The Government submitted that since no care order was issued the applicant was obviously not a minor .

The applicant was detained in ORG in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in conditions which she considered prison - like and basic . The Government contested this allegation .

She explained that the Block is divided into CARDINAL self - contained zones ( CARDINAL on the ground floor , CARDINAL on the first floor and CARDINAL on the second floor ) and CARDINAL of the zones ( B , C , D , E ) were virtually identical . For DATE of her detention she had been held in Zone E which at the time accommodated families ( i.e. couples with or without children ) , and then she was moved to GPE and D with other single women .

These zones contained a number of dormitories ( containing bunk beds but no lockers or cupboards for personal belongings ) , CARDINAL showers and toilets , a small kitchen with CARDINAL or CARDINAL hot plates and a fridge ( no further storage for food , which was stored in open boxes accessible to insects , was available ) , and a common room with CARDINAL basic metal tables and benches screwed to the ground , together with a television . Blankets hanging from bunk beds were the only means of privacy .

Access to the zones was through metal gates which were kept locked DATE , and detainees could leave the zone for DATE , which they could spend in a small dusty yard . Windows were barred and most of them glazed with opaque Perspex ( which was removed in DATE for air , though they then let air through in DATE ) . On the one hand , in DATE the facility was often crowded and the heat would become oppressive despite the presence of ceiling fans . On the other hand , in DATE it was unbearably cold as the facility was not heated and , moreover , was exposed to the elements as there were no adjoining buildings .

The applicant considered that the facility was shared by too many people – in DATE the applicant ’s dormitory ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL in the zone ) was shared by QUANTITY women – and agreement amongst so many different persons having cultural and linguistic differences was difficult . However , at the time of the introduction of the application , the applicant was in less crowded conditions , sharing an entire zone with CARDINAL other women , most of whom were NORP and NORP .

The applicant noted that since her arrival she had only been provided with CARDINAL bed sheets , a small towel , a blanket , a T - shirt , CARDINAL pillow and a pillow case , a few items of underwear and a pair of flip - flops , as well as a plastic plate , cup , and set of cutlery . Other items of clothing were distributed sporadically . She stated that she was never provided with a quilt , a bra or running shoes . While toilet paper was distributed on a DATE basis , certain basic items such as sanitary pads were missing . In DATE detainees were not systematically provided with warm clothes and closed shoes , which were distributed according to what was received by way of donation and which was not sufficient to supply the needs of all detainees . Although blankets were distributed to everyone , the building was not heated and DATE were unbearably cold .

Detainees had little to do DATE , and only limited access to open air . In particular , the applicant noted that she was let out into the small dirty yard for the first time only after DATE of detention . While in the yard , other male detainees called out names and picked on the women from the windows of their rooms overlooking the yard . The applicant referred to the report “ Not here to stay : Report of ORG on its visit to GPE on DATE ” , DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

She also noted that although telephone cards were distributed ( each of LAW ( EUR ) ) , the credit they contained was often insufficient to make long distance calls and no cheaper ways of keeping contact with the family or outside world were available as they had no internet access . By the time she lodged her application she had received LAW in credit . The applicant also considered inappropriate that detainees were given the same soap to use for their bodies , hair , clothes and floor . The applicant further made reference to an incident with a detention officer who had pushed her down the stairs and tried to forcefully resuscitate her by slapping her and grabbing different parts of her face leaving her in pain – she , however , admitted that she could not recognise the officer in question and that she had feared reprisal had she reported the matter .

Furthermore , as could be seen from the results of ORG ( JRS ) LOC study on detention of vulnerable asylum seekers , the physical conditions of detention and their impact on the physical and mental well - being of detainees were exacerbated by other factors . These factors included : length of detention , lack of constructive activities to occupy detainees , overcrowding , limited access to open air , difficulties in communication with staff and with other detainees , and lack of information about one ’s situation . Moreover , there was a lack of any real possibility of obtaining effective redress and inmates knew that detention was not serving any useful purpose and was in no way proportionate to the aim to be achieved .

The applicant submitted that all of those objective factors had had a particular impact on her because of her personal circumstances , particularly her young age , her inability to communicate in anything but NORP and the fact that as a young woman she was detained in a facility administered almost exclusively by men .

On DATE the applicant was called for an interview with the Refugee Commissioner . By means of a decision of the Refugee Commissioner of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was granted subsidiary protection in GPE . She was notified of this decision and released on DATE .


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . All the applicants are nationals of GPE and are represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE .

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

Following its declaration of independence from the former Socialist GPE ( SFRY ) in DATE , a brutal war broke out in GPE . CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL others were displaced as a result of “ ethnic cleansing ” or generalised violence . The following local forces were the main parties to the conflict : the ORG ( mostly made up of Bosniacs and loyal to the central authorities in GPE ) , ORG ( mostly made up of NORP ) and the ORG ( mostly made up of NORP ) . The conflict ended in DATE when ORG for Peace ( “ LAW ” ) entered into force between GPE , GPE and GPE ( succeeded by GPE in DATE ) .

Žepa , a town in eastern GPE , is situated QUANTITY from the border with GPE . Before the war it had a population of CARDINAL , of whom the majority were Bosniacs . During the war , PERSON was one of CARDINAL PERSON enclaves in eastern GPE surrounded by the ORG . In DATE it was declared a “ safe area ” by ORG .

NORP In DATE , there were CARDINAL people living in Žepa , of whom CARDINAL were displaced persons from other parts of GPE .

On DATE the ORG attacked the PERSON “ safe area ” , capturing it on DATE . In DATE that followed , CARDINAL LOC – predominantly able - bodied men who had refused to surrender to ORG forces DATE managed to cross the border and flee into GPE . The present applicants were among them .

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

When PERSON was captured by the ORG , the applicants crossed into GPE from GPE , hoping that they would be able to find refuge in a third country . They were discovered by the border guard of the LAW and taken to CARDINAL detention camps . The applicants claim that they received notification that they had prisoner - of - war status ; it would appear that some of them were indeed members of ORG but some were civilians . The first camp , ORG , was situated in the municipality of PERSON and the second , PERSON , in the municipality of PERSON , both in GPE . The GPE detention camp was located in an abandoned workers’ barracks and the PERSON camp in a former children ’s recreational facility .

During their existence the camps were visited by representatives of ORG and ORG for Missing Persons of GPE . The latter compiled a report in which it found that the conditions of detention were disturbing .

DATE the ORG facilitated the transfer of the camps’ detainees to third countries and the camps were closed in DATE .

On DATE LAW ( GPE pravo ) , a GPE - based ORG , lodged a criminal complaint on behalf of the applicants with ORG against CARDINAL individuals for alleged war crimes . In the criminal complaint it was alleged that , when the applicants were discovered at the NORP border , the army and the police had used force against them and transported them to the aforementioned camps . Both camps had been guarded by officers of the NORP police force and none of the applicants had been allowed to leave them . According to the applicants , during the time they spent in the camps they had been regularly verbally abused , taken to mock executions , kicked and punched , and beaten with fists , batons , cables , shovels and metal rods . Some of the applicants had had burning cigarettes held against their skin , had been forced to drink water mixed with motor oil and some had also been sexually abused ( in particular , some of the applicants had been forced to perform sexual acts on each other ) . The applicants who had been suspected of being members of the ORG had suffered particularly harsh treatment and had been forced to engage in mutual fights , look directly into the sun , move heavy rocks and had been denied medical assistance .

NORP In its criminal complaint LAW submitted statements by the camps’ detainees , medical documentation , documentation from ORG and ORG for Missing Persons of GPE , and other evidence . Amongst those who were alleged to have taken part in torture , the ORG identified members of ORG , police officers , and military servicemen of various ranks .

On DATE ORG undertook preliminary verification of the information submitted by the applicants and requested that ORG and ORG submit information regarding the criminal complaint .

On DATE and DATE ORG submitted CARDINAL reports to the ORG . In their reports it was stated that the situation in the camps had been generally good , that the camps had not been enclosed behind a fence , and that residents who were given refugee status had had access to health services , a canteen , a post office , a phone , a bank , and both private visits and visits by officials from international organisations . While CARDINAL of the reports describes the conditions in GPE camp as unsatisfactory , the conditions in PERSON were described as lodgings with the quality of “ hotel accommodation ” .

On DATE ORG notified LAW that it did not find any grounds for initiating criminal investigation since the alleged acts could not be classified as war crimes or any other crime under the jurisdiction of ORG . On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal before ORG claiming violations of ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention . On DATE ORG rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the LAW , finding that the notification in question was not an act which was decisive with respect to the applicants’ human rights .

On DATE ORG , acting upon a civil action for damages brought by CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON and PERSON , delivered a final judgment in civil proceedings in which it found that the applicants in question had suffered “ intensive torture and inhumane treatment ” and that the “ applicants survived what was without a doubt the harshest suffering an individual [ could ] experience ” . The court further described the actions of the guards towards the CARDINAL applicants and other detainees as “ conduct ... hardly worthy of a human being ” . Each plaintiff was awarded MONEY ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damage .

The decision of ORG was delivered to the ORG representative on DATE .

LAW of the Socialist GPE DATE ( ORG of ORG – ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and in ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE . The relevant provisions thereof are set out hereunder .

Article CARDINAL governs the statutory limitation periods in respect of criminal liability . The relevant parts are worded as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If not prescribed differently by this LAW , criminal liability shall be statutebarred :

CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the offence was committed in instances where the law provides for the death penalty or DATE imprisonment ;

CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;

Article CARDINAL of the same Code is worded as follows :

“ The statutory limitation of criminal liability does not apply to the crimes covered by Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of this Code [ genocide and war crimes ] or to crimes for which statutory limitation is proscribed by international treaties . ”

The Criminal code of GPE ( Official Gazette of GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE .

CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the offence was committed where the law provides for DATE imprisonment ;

“ The statutory limitation of criminal liability does not apply to crimes covered by LAW of this Code [ genocide and war crimes ] or to crimes for which statutory limitation is proscribed by ratified international treaties . ”

Article CARDINAL - War crime against the civilian population

“ Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law applicable in time of war , armed conflict or occupation , orders that a civilian population be subject to killing , torture , inhumane treatment , biological experiments , immense suffering or violation of their bodily integrity or health ; dislocation or displacement or forcible conversion to another nationality or religion ; forcible prostitution or rape ; application of measures of intimidation and terror , hostage - taking , imposition of collective punishment , unlawful transfer to concentration camps or other illegal arrests and detention , deprivation of rights to fair and impartial trial ; forcible service in the armed forces of the enemy ’s army or in its intelligence service or administration ; forced labour , starvation of the population , property confiscation , pillaging , illegal and intentional destruction or large - scale stealing of property that is not justified by military needs , taking an illegal and disproportionate contribution or requisition , devaluation of domestic currency or the unlawful issuance of currency ; or personally commits CARDINAL of the aforementioned actions , shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment or the death penalty . ”

Article CARDINAL - War crime against prisoners of war

“ Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law , orders the murder , torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war , including biological experiments , extreme suffering or serious injury to their bodily integrity or health , compulsory enlistment in the armed forces of an enemy power , or deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial , or personally commits any of the aforementioned acts , shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment or by the death penalty . ”

LAW of GPE ( ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force in until DATE . Its relevant provisions read as follows :

Article DATE Serious bodily harm

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another , or serious impairment of another ’s health , shall be punished by imprisonment for DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another or impairment of another ’s health resulting in the endangering of the life of that person or the destruction or permanent significant damage to or weakening of a vital function of his body or an organ thereof , or permanent serious health impairment or disfigurement , shall be punished by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL – Serious bodily harm

( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another or impairment of another ’s health resulting in the endangering of the life of that person or the destruction or permanent significant damage to or weakening of a vital function of his body or an organ thereof , or permanent serious health impairment or disfigurement , shall be punished by imprisonment of CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

( CARDINAL ) If the actions specified in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article result in the death of the injured party , the offender shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE .

Article CARDINAL – Ill - treatment and Torture

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever ill - treats another or treats a party in a humiliating and degrading manner shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes anguish to another with the aim of obtaining information or a confession from him or another person or of intimidating him or a third party or of exerting pressure on such persons , or does so for motives based on any form of discrimination , shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If the offence specified in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article is committed by an official whilst discharging his duty , that person shall be punished for the offence in described in paragraph CARDINAL by imprisonment from DATE , and for the offence described in paragraph CARDINAL by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL – Crime against humanity

“ Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law , orders as part of a wider and systematic attack against a civilian population : murder ; placement of the group in living conditions calculated to bring about its complete or partial extermination , enslavement , deportation , torture , or rape ; enforced prostitution ; forcible pregnancy or sterilisation aimed at changing the ethnic balance of the population ; persecution on political , racial , national , ethical , sexual or other grounds , detention or abduction of persons without disclosing information about such acts in order to deny such person legal protection ; oppression of a racial group or establishing domination of CARDINAL such group over another ; or other similar inhumane acts that intentionally cause serious suffering or serious impairment of health , or personally commits any of the aforementioned offences , shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE or imprisonment of DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL – War crime against civilian population

( CARDINAL ) Whoever , acting in violation of international law in time of war , armed conflict or occupation orders : an attack on the civilian population , a settlement , particular civilians , persons incapable of combat or members or facilities of humanitarian organisations or peacekeeping missions ; wanton attack without target selection that harms the civilian population or civilian buildings under the special protection of international law ; an attack against military targets knowing that such an attack would cause collateral damage among civilians or damage to civilian buildings that is evidently disproportionate to the military effect ; the infliction on the civilian population of bodily injury , torture , inhumane treatment , biological , medical or other research experiments , or the taking of tissue or organs for transplantation or the performing of other acts that impair health or inflict great suffering or the deportation or relocation or forced change of nationality or religion ; forcible prostitution or rape ; applying intimidation and terror measures , taking hostages , collective punishment , unlawful deprivation of freedom and detention ; deprivation of the rights to a fair and impartial trial ; declaration of the prohibition , suspension or non - admissibility in court proceedings of the rights and acts of enemy nationals ; the coercion into service of a hostile power or its intelligence or administration services ; the coercion into military service of persons DATE ; forced labour ; starvation of the population ; unlawful seizure , appropriation or destruction of property not justified by military needs ; taking unlawful and disproportionate contributions and requisitions ; devaluation of local currency or unlawful issuing of currency , or personally commits any of the above offences , shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .

Article CARDINAL – War crimes against prisoners of war

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever , acting in violation of international law , orders the injury , torture , or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war , or biological , medical or other research experiments on them , or the taking of their tissues or body organs for transplantation or the commission of other acts harmful to health and causing them serious suffering , or compels prisoners of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power or deprives them of the rights to fair and regular trial ; or personally commits any such offences , shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .

( CARDINAL ) Whoever orders the murder of prisoners of war or personally commits such an offence , shall be punished by CARDINAL years’ imprisonment or imprisonment of DATE . ”

This Act ( published in ORG no . CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) entered into force on DATE . ORG , ORG and ORG within ORG and ORG were set up pursuant to LAW . They have jurisdiction over serious violations of international humanitarian law committed anywhere in the former GPE ( see section CARDINAL of this Act ) .

In a number of previous cases concerning war crimes , this ORG has treated the war in GPE DATE as an internal armed conflict ( see judgments in cases GPE , PERSON I , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) . The majority of the indictments in these cases came into force by DATE . The final judgments in the majority of these cases were adopted by the domestic courts by DATE .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o obligacionim odnosima ; published in FAC . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his or her personal rights ( prava ličnosti ) is entitled , depending on the duration and intensity of the breach , to sue for financial compensation in the civil courts and , in addition , to request other forms of redress capable of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .


CASE OF ANDONOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .

The applicant was a taxi driver . On DATE his car was parked on a taxi post at the NORP bus station . As established in the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON , accompanied by PERSON and ORG , all NORP nationals ( “ the migrants ” ) , asked the applicant to drive them to the village of GPE , PERSON . Only PERSON , who was fluent in NORP , told the applicant that they were going to PERSON to work . PERSON and ORG did not speak during the journey . At TIME they were stopped by the police at a place called PERSON . The migrants had no travel documents . The applicant and the migrants were arrested . The applicant ’s car was also seized . A receipt for temporarily seized objects was issued to him .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) opened an investigation against the applicant and PERSON on grounds of a reasonable suspicion of migrant smuggling , punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the public prosecutor withdrew the charges against the applicant for lack of evidence . In a written statement of that date the public prosecutor indicated that there was no evidence that the applicant had known or had reasonable grounds to believe that he had transported illegal migrants . He had met them for the first time at the NORP bus station . He had never had any contact with them before . Since PERSON was fluent in NORP , the applicant could not have suspected that he ( PERSON ) was a migrant . The other CARDINAL migrants had not spoken during the journey . Furthermore , PERSON had confirmed that he had misled the applicant , since otherwise nobody would have driven them . For that reason , he had advised ORG and ORG not to speak . When the police had stopped them , he had apologised to the applicant . That had been confirmed by ORG and ORG and CARDINAL police officers who had stopped them on DATE in question . On DATE , the investigating judge discontinued the investigation concerning the applicant . The latter decision indicated that the applicant had no previous criminal record .

On DATE the trial court convicted GPE of migrant smuggling and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court established that PERSON had told PERSON and ORG , illegal migrants from GPE , that he could transfer them illegally into GPE . They had paid him MONEY ( ORG ) . They had crossed the NORP - Albanian border illegally ; they had used a taxi to travel to several cities in the respondent ORG and to arrive ultimately at the NORP bus station . There , PERSON had agreed with the applicant , who participated in the proceedings as a witness , to transport them to the village of PERSON , from where all the migrants had intended to cross the border on foot .

The trial court also ordered , under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) confiscation of the applicant ’s car , as the means by which the criminal offence had been committed ( “ the confiscation order ” ) . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :

“ According to Article CARDINAL-a(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) taken in conjunction with Article CARDINAL ) of the [ Criminal Code ] , the court confiscated ... from [ the applicant ] the vehicle which had been used for transportation of [ ORG and ORG ] , because [ the applicant ] could have known that [ they ] were migrants , since both of them – the witnesses [ , ] had not talked , had not had any equipment with which they would work as construction workers or lumberjacks , and also the time in the afternoon when he had transported them to PERSON indicated that they were not going to work , but [ had intended ] to cross the NORP - Greek border illegally at TIME , which should have been known to the [ applicant ] as an experienced taxi - driver . [ The applicant ] also stated that he had been suspicious CARDINAL of the witnesses , because he had been thin , which meant that he could have known that they had been migrants and not ( ordinary ) persons who were going to PERSON to work , as he himself had known that the border was illegally crossed near the villages PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . ”

The applicant appealed , arguing that the confiscation order had not been based on any fact . He had not been convicted of any crime and the trial court was not entitled to order confiscation of his car . PERSON , who was convicted , had been travelling in the car as a passenger . The fact that the public prosecutor had withdrawn the charges against him confirmed that he had not known that he was transporting illegal migrants . No evidence had been adduced to prove otherwise . Lastly , he had never been involved in migrant smuggling .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the confiscation order . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ It is true that the first - instance court , in the operative part and in the reasoning of the impugned judgment concerning the confiscation of the [ car ] , provided reasons , [ i.e. ] referred to ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] , which constitute an incorrect application of the substantive law , and an incorrect application of [ the LAW ] . Article CARDINAL of [ the Code ] concerns the confiscation of objects , and paragraph ( CARDINAL ) refers to objects used for the commission of a criminal offence . When those objects are owned by a third person , they may be confiscated CARDINAL persons knew or could and ought to have known that the objects are being used or are intended to be used to commit an offence . In the present case there is no need for the application of this rule , because the rule contained in LAW ( CARDINAL ) necessarily requires the confiscation of the objects and the means of transport used to commit the offence , irrespective of whom they belong to , whom they are for , or whom they come from .

In such circumstances , coupled with the fact which was established beyond any doubt , ( namely ) that this offence was committed by the accused with the [ applicant ’s ] vehicle , the court was correct to confiscate the vehicle by its decision contained in the operative provision of the judgment . ”

On DATE the public prosecutor notified the applicant that there were no grounds to institute legality review proceedings ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) .


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

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


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The following summary of the background of the case and the events in GPE is based on the submissions by the applicants . The account of the investigation in GPE is based on the submissions by both parties .

The applicants are all nationals of the GPE . The first and third applicants were recruited in DATE and DATE respectively by an employment agency in GPE to work as maids or au pairs in GPE ( GPE ) . The second applicant travelled to GPE in DATE for the same purpose , at the suggestion of the first applicant , not via an agency . All of the applicants had their passports taken away by their employers . During the course of their work in GPE , they allege that they were subjected to ill - treatment and exploitation by their employers , who also failed to pay them their agreed wages and forced them to work TIME , under the threat of further ill - treatment .

In DATE the first applicant contacted an agency in GPE in order to find a job abroad . She is a single mother with CARDINAL daughter who was DATE at the time . She signed a contract in which she agreed to work for a family in GPE for DATE , from DATE until DATE . The contract also stipulated that she would be paid CARDINAL GPE dirhams ( AED – approximately CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) at that time ) per month to work for TIME each working day . Upon her arrival in GPE the first applicant was taken to her employers , who were CARDINAL sisters or sisters - in - law sharing CARDINAL large residence with their families . CARDINAL of them took possession of her passport .

For most of the initial DATE contract the first applicant was not subjected to physical abuse or direct threats of harm by her employers , and she was paid regularly . However , she had to work from TIME to TIME throughout the initial DATE period . Her duties included looking after her ORG children , preparing meals , cleaning the house , doing the laundry and numerous other jobs around the house and garden . During DATE she was required to perform DATE without DATE off , and was not allowed to leave the house unsupervised . She was not allowed to have her own telephone and was only allowed to call her family in the GPE once DATE , the costs of these calls being deducted from her wages . Further , the first applicant was forbidden from speaking to any of the other workers from the GPE in their native language . She was constantly hungry , as she was generally only given the family ’s leftover food . Only when she accompanied the family to the supermarket DATE was she allowed to buy some basic food for herself .

After DATE , the first applicant faced the first punishments by her employers . She was forced to sleep on the floor when they found out that she had been talking to another employee from the GPE in their native language . When she became ill after sleeping on the cold floor , her employers prevented her from buying medicine or contacting a doctor ; instead , she had to continue working TIME .

Towards the end of her DATE contract , the first applicant ’s employers informed her that they wished her to stay , and offered her better pay , DATE off and a telephone of her own , as well as permission to visit her family , provided that she recruited someone to take over her job while she was away . The first applicant finally agreed to extend her contract and returned to the GPE for DATE . Owing to the incentives and the prospect of improved working conditions , she asked the second applicant to take over her role in GPE during the time she was away .

While the first applicant was in the GPE , she received threats from her employers that if she did not return to GPE to work , she would be banned from ever going back there , and the second applicant would be subjected to ill - treatment . The first applicant therefore returned to GPE in DATE .

After she returned to GPE , she was taught how to drive . After she failed her first driving test , she was forced to pay for further lessons and tests out of her own salary , with CARDINAL further driving tests costing LAW each , a DATE ’s salary . While she was driving , one of her employers hit her on the shoulder on a number of occasions to force her to speed up . The employer also started to slap or hit her regularly for no or little reason . She also repeatedly threatened to let her husband hit the first applicant if she did not follow her orders or made any mistakes .

The first applicant accompanied her employers on trips to LOC , GPE , GPE and GPE , where she spent significant amounts of time locked up in hotel rooms or under the close supervision of her employers . She only had to visit CARDINAL embassy in person to obtain entry documents , and that was in relation to a trip to GPE , at which time she was ordered by her employers to lie about her work conditions . When they arrived in GPE , the first applicant was not allowed at any time to leave the apartment in which they were staying .

The second applicant was married with CARDINAL young children in the GPE . Her husband had no regular work . Because she expected better pay in GPE , she agreed to work for the same employers as the first applicant . The employers in GPE arranged a visiting visa for her , under false pretences . As a result of this arrangement , the second applicant did not approach the employment agency in the GPE and did not have a written contract with her employers . Her understanding was that she would get LAW per month , which would be paid directly to her family in the GPE .

NORP In DATE the second applicant started to work in GPE . After the first applicant returned to the GPE for DATE in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the employers significantly changed their conduct towards the second applicant . They threatened not to pay her family if she made any mistakes . They refused to let her leave GPE , including by refusing to return her passport and ordering her to repay them her travel costs and related expenses . They also told her that she would be put in prison if she ran away or went to the authorities in GPE for help . They physically and emotionally abused her , and there was CARDINAL incident when CARDINAL of her employers struck her across the shoulder using significant force . She was also forced to work from CARDINAL or TIME until TIME DATE .

DATE and DATE the violent and threatening behaviour of the employers increased . The second applicant was punched by CARDINAL of her employers on CARDINAL occasion , and in another incident the employer aimed a hard slap at her face , but instead struck her across the shoulder .

The third applicant ’s family were desperate for money to pay for crucial medical treatment for her brother . Therefore , in DATE she contacted an employment agency in the GPE and was offered work as a maid in GPE . She was informed that she would be earning CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL at that time ) per month , roughly twice her salary in the GPE . Upon her arrival in GPE in DATE she had to hand over her passport and mobile phone to someone supposedly working for the employment agency . She was told that these items would be returned to her when she finished her work in GPE .

The third applicant was working for a family member of the first and second applicants’ employers . The applicants got to know each other , as the CARDINAL families met DATE . They secretly shared their experiences on these occasions .

The third applicant was also bound by TIME going from TIME . Her employer forced her to clean her car in the sun and in unbearable heat , and she was prohibited from going to the toilet without letting her employer know . She was only allowed to call her family in the GPE once DATE , and only in the presence of her employer . She did not receive any remuneration at all for DATE of her employment . Afterwards , she only received approximately ORG DATE , less than what had been agreed . On CARDINAL occasion she was slapped by her employer , and on a different occasion she witnessed another employee being hit over the head .

When the third applicant told her employer that she wished to return to the GPE , she was told that she would have to pay the cost of the flight and the agency fees , which her employer knew she could not afford at that point . Her employer also made it clear that , in any event , her passport would not be returned to her until she had completed DATE of work in GPE . Subsequently , the third applicant was too scared to ask to leave GPE again , owing to her fear that her employer would take her earnings from her or refuse to return her passport for an even longer period .

On DATE the applicants’ employers took them along on a short holiday trip to GPE . The applicants all stayed at the same hotel in the city centre of GPE . The applicants slept in their own , separate apartment together with the female children . The male children slept in the same apartment as their parents . As in GPE , the applicants had to take care of all of the ORG children and perform numerous other domestic duties . They were still required to work from CARDINAL or TIME or even later . The third applicant was regularly shouted at by her employer , for example if she failed to get all the children ready TIME . In addition , their employers woke the first applicant up at TIME and forced her to cook food for them . Furthermore , the first applicant was forced to carry the employers’ CARDINAL suitcases into the hotel by herself . While the applicants were in GPE , their passports remained with their employers . In the hotel in GPE in which the applicants were staying , they became acquainted with ORG , an employee at the hotel who could speak LANGUAGE , the first applicant ’s mother tongue .

When the applicants accompanied their employers to a zoo DATE after their arrival in GPE , CARDINAL of the children went missing for some time . CARDINAL of the employers started screaming at the first and third applicants in a manner which the applicants had not experienced before . The first applicant found the level of verbal abuse extreme , and this was a particularly distressing and humiliating experience for her . The employer threatened to beat the third applicant , and said that “ something bad ” would happen to her if the child was not found safe and well . By this stage , the third applicant had formed the impression that this employer , of whom she lived in a constant state of fear , was a dangerous person who might try to hurt her very badly . She had the feeling that the violence towards her was likely to escalate at any time . Therefore , she believed that something bad was going to happen to her if she remained with the family . Similarly , the first applicant believed that they could not live with their conditions of work any longer , and did not want to risk waiting to see what happened if they travelled with their employers from GPE to GPE , as they were scheduled to do . The applicants therefore decided to speak to ORG , the LANGUAGE - speaking employee at the hotel , to see whether she could help them .

The night following the incident – that is , DATE after their arrival in GPE – the applicants left the hotel with the help of N. , who had organised a car to pick them up in a side street near the hotel and take them to a “ safe place ” . The applicants subsequently found support within the local NORP community in GPE .

NORP In DATE or DATE , DATE after they had left their employers , the applicants contacted a local NGO called “ LEFÖ ” for assistance in reporting their ill - treatment , abuse and exploitation to the police . PERSON is actively involved in the fight against trafficking in human beings in GPE . It is financed though government funds , in particular for the provision of assistance to victims of trafficking . In DATE the applicants decided to turn to the NORP police and filed a criminal complaint ( PERSON ) against their employers . They explained that they had been the victims of human trafficking . On CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , accompanied by representatives of ORG , they were interviewed at length by officers from ORG ( PERSON für ORG ) at ORG ( Bundeskriminalamt ) . In their report , the officers concluded that the offences had been committed abroad .

The applicants were informed that their employers had also made allegations about their conduct , alleging , inter alia , that they had stolen money and a mobile phone from them when they had fled the hotel . Those allegations were subsequently formally recognised by the NORP authorities as false . The applicants all expressed their willingness to actively cooperate with the authorities and to engage in criminal proceedings against their employers .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor ’s office ( Staatsanwaltschaft Wien ) discontinued the proceedings under LAW ( Strafgesetzbuch – hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) relating to human trafficking ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , pursuant to LAW ( Strafprozessordnung – hereinafter “ the ORG ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the public prosecutor gave a short written decision with reasons for the discontinuation of the proceedings . In the public prosecutor ’s view , the offence had been committed abroad by non - nationals , and did not engage NORP interests within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application to continue the investigation ( Fortsetzungsantrag ) with ORG ( Straflandesgericht Wien ) . They submitted that NORP interests had indeed been engaged , and that their employers had continued to exploit and abuse them in GPE . In their view , the elements of the crime punishable under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG had been present .

The GPE public prosecutor ’s office then submitted a statement to ORG , specifying its reasons for discontinuing the investigation . There had been no indication in the case file that any of the criminal actions exhaustively listed in LAW had occurred in GPE , particularly since the offence had already been completed in GPE ( zumal das Delikt bereits in GPE vollendet wurde ) , and the accused were not NORP citizens . Furthermore , from the ORG statements ( looking after children , washing laundry , cooking food ) , it did not appear that they had been exploited in GPE , especially since they had managed to leave their employers DATE after their arrival in GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ application . The relevant parts of the decision read ( translation from NORP ) :

“ The decision to discontinue [ criminal proceedings ] requires DATE by implication – that the facts of a case are sufficiently clear , or a lack of indication that investigations would be promising .

There is no reason for further prosecution if , on the basis of the ... results of the investigation , a conviction is no more likely than an acquittal ...

According to LAW , if NORP interests have been harmed by the offence or the perpetrator can not be extradited , NORP criminal laws apply independently of the criminal laws of the place where the crime was committed , for example in relation to the offence of kidnapping for ransom under LAW . Owing to the fact that the applicants spent DATE in GPE , the conditions regarding the fulfilment of the elements of the crime under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG have not been met , since the relevant acts relating to the exploitation of labour must be committed over a longer period of time ; therefore , the commission of the offence in GPE is ruled out .

The jurisdiction of the NORP criminal - law enforcement authorities can not be deduced from LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG either .

NORP interests are engaged if either the victim or the perpetrator is an NORP citizen , or if the criminal acts have a concrete connection to GPE , or if an obligation arises under international law in relation to the prosecution of certain offences . NORP interests are , in any event , engaged if a criminal offence under LAW , CARDINAL , ORG or CARDINAL of the ORG is committed against an NORP citizen , or if NORP funds or NORP securities ( Wertpapiere ) are the subject of offences under LAW , or LAW in conjunction with LAW , of the ORG .

The applicants’ argument that the elements of the crime under LAW had also been fulfilled in GPE therefore fails , and the plea that the alleged criminal actions against them by their employers in GPE ... would lead to an obligation on the part of GPE under international law is likewise not convincing . In relation to the present case , [ this latter argument ] also can not be inferred from the quoted [ ORG ] judgment no . CARDINAL Os CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which affirmed that NORP interests had been damaged as a result of the import into GPE of a large amount of narcotics for transport ... ”

This decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on DATE .

In DATE of the CARDINAL applicants lodged a civil claim against their employers with ORG ) in order to claim their wages . However , they alleged that because of the high risk of having to pay the costs of the proceedings because the employers did not reside in GPE , they withdrew the action .

The NGO LEFÖ not only assisted the applicants in filing a criminal complaint against their employers , but also supported them in applying for a special residence permit in GPE for victims of human trafficking , under the former section CARDINAL of LAW ( Niederlassungs- und DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

All CARDINAL applicants were granted a residence permit for special protection purposes in DATE , valid for DATE initially . Subsequently , because of their progressing integration , they were granted other types of residence permits with longer periods of validity .

The applicants were officially registered in ORG ( PERSON ) from the point when PERSON started supporting them . A personal data disclosure ban was enacted on ORG for their protection , so that their whereabouts would not be traceable by the general public .