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

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

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

NORP On DATE the Graz Regional Court ( PERSON für PERSON ) convicted the applicant of partly attempted and partly realised drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

He was found , together with GPE , to have assisted in the shipment of QUANTITY of cocaine from GPE in GPE . The transport route via the GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE to GPE had only been interrupted as a result of the seizure of the drugs by the GPE authorities in the port of GPE .

The applicant was also found to have organised the shipment , once again together with GPE , of a further QUANTITY cocaine from GPE , via GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE to GPE in GPE , with the onward transportation by road to GPE being organised by investigators from ORG for Interior Affairs . Finally , the applicant and GPE were found to have attempted by means of those shipments to supply the above - mentioned quantities of illegal substances to contacts in LOC for further distribution .

According to the reasoning of the judgment of ORG , the applicant was the contact person of the NORP cocaine ORG group which entered into business with a NORP - Montenegrin buyers’ group with GPE as mediator . GPE was known to ORG ( ORG ) and an informant ( “ PERSON ) was placed close to GPE by the GPE authorities . PERSON was well known to the authorities and had had business dealings with GPE in the past . He was not a police officer but was supervised by special agent GPE of the ORG . He had also worked for the ORG and the NORP authorities in a coordinated operation DATE to uncover international drug trafficking in LOC through GPE . Due to the conduct of PERSON , authorities learned in DATE that GPE had contacted an international group that was interested in establishing a NORP infrastructure through which to traffic counterfeit cigarettes and cocaine . The information included details of possible quantities and routes . GPE was looking for somebody who could provide the transport and the storage of the cocaine from GPE , where the drugs should be unshipped , to GPE . NORP authorities were asked by the ORG if they would provide these services to GPE in the course of an undercover operation . DATE and DATE , the NORP police authorities initiated undercover investigations , primarily into the NORP partners to the deal . NORP undercover police officers were introduced to GPE by PERSON and offered the required transport and storage services . GPE and the CARDINAL criminal groups accepted . During the business negotiations , the NORP group as well as the ORG group requested a security in case of loss of the drugs due to the conduct of the NORP authorities . The undercover officers offered a deposit of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL which was presented to the contact persons of the CARDINAL groups . After the security deposit was presented , the cocaine was shipped in LOC in CARDINAL tranches . On DATE the first container left the port of GPE , GPE , with a planned arrival date in GPE , GPE , of CARDINAL or DATE . On board were QUANTITY of best quality cocaine , consisting of QUANTITY of cocaine in pure form . However , the cocaine was seized and secured in the port of GPE , GPE , in the course of a police intervention by the GPE security authorities . The empty container was sent on to GPE . On DATE a second container with QUANTITY of cocaine was shipped . The first container arrived in GPE , GPE , on DATE and was unloaded by NORP undercover police officers . As agreed by the CARDINAL criminal organisations involved , they stored the shipped goods in which the drugs had been hidden , in a storage facility in GPE before passing them on to the group headed by PERSON and other distributors for sale in LOC . On DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE via GPE , and finally arrived in GPE on DATE . The objective of the trip was to have a representative of the NORP group present at the handover of the original freight papers . When the loading should have formally been handed over to the ORG group , the police arrested the applicant and the others .

There is no indication that at any point during the trial proceedings before ORG the applicant filed a request that the indictment be declared unlawful and that , as a consequence , all evidence obtained in the course of thereof be excluded from the trial .

ORG attributed importance to the witness statements of the undercover officers who had explained – as set out in the reasoning of the judgment DATE credibly and in great detail the structure and organisation of the groups involved , the details of the deal , and the conversations held during the course of planning the crime . The court emphasised that the undercover ORG responsibility had been to put in place the planned infrastructure ( the storage , for example ) , not to simulate drug - purchasing . In view of the international dimension of the drug deal and the involvement of an obviously substantial NORP drug trafficking group , the court found it not abnormal that trust - generating measures such as the payment of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as a security deposit had to be demonstrated by the undercover officers .

The applicant ’s involvement was confirmed , inter alia , by the investigative results of a police officer in GPE who was able to confirm the contacts established early on between GPE and the applicant in LOC .

When determining the sentence to be imposed on the applicant , ORG stated as mitigating circumstances the lack of any criminal record of the applicant in GPE , the length of the proceedings , and the fact that the criminal acts had remained attempts only . However , the large quantities of illegal drugs involved were deemed to constitute an aggravating circumstance .

On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a plea of nullity to ORG ) . In this plea he did not complain about incitement .

In the same submission the applicant lodged also an appeal against the sentence to ORG ( Berufung ) . In the appeal the applicant sought mitigation of the sentence and submitted , inter alia , that the first - instance court , in imposing the sentence , had disregarded the fact that the offences had been prompted by actions on the part of domestic and NORP police authorities . He further stated that the ORG had also approached the NORP police authorities with their plan to help realise a major drug deal , but the latter had declined the proposal as being unlawful . Only then had the ORG proposed the plan to the NORP authorities . The applicant alleged that neither the NORP group nor the presumed NORP buyers had had the intention of organising a drug shipment to GPE . That plan had been created ‒ in contravention of NORP law ‒ by the Agent S.F. together with NORP officials from ORG ( ORG für ORG ) . Those acts on the part of the police authorities exceeded the bounds of simple provocation , especially taking into account that the offences of which the applicant was convicted would not have come to fruition had the NORP authorities not deposited ORG CARDINAL by way of a security deposit .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant ’s plea of nullity .

On DATE the ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Graz ) allowed the applicant ’s appeal and decreased his sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It found firstly that the commercial character of the offences ( gewerbsmässige Begehungsweise ) had to be taken into consideration as an additional aggravating circumstance . As regards the significance attributed by the first - instance court to the length of the proceedings , ORG stated that , while acknowledging the length of the proceedings as a mitigating circumstance , ORG had not clearly quantified the reduction of the sentence related to that mitigating circumstance . Finally , concerning the provocation of the criminal offence that violated the fairness principle of LAW , ORG noted in respect of the co - convicted PERSON as follows :

“ The objection of unlawful incitement , in breach of the principle of a fair trial under the first sentence of LAW , is well founded , as there was incitement to commit an offence , attributable to the ORG . This is especially true since the prosecuting authorities failed to prove that the appellant , although disposed to commit an offence , had not been induced DATE in particular via the provision of the intermediate storage facility for the drugs by the undercover investigators and the support they provided for transporting the drugs to that storage facility – to commit and continue to commit the specific punishable acts of which he was accused . The unlawful incitement should also be remedied by means of an explicit , measurable reduction in sentence . ”

Applying this reasoning to the applicant ’s appeal , ORG further found that :

“ The consequent breach of the right to a fair trial also found in the case of the accused PERSON is likewise remedied by the appellate court by means of a reduction in sentence . This was taken into account to some extent by the first - instance court DATE albeit not in quantitative terms – in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings . The sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , which was otherwise commensurate with the degree of guilt and the seriousness of the offence ( regard being had to the corrected factors considered in determining sentence and the assessment thereof ) , is reduced by DATE for each of the CARDINAL breaches of the Convention , resulting in a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ”

That judgment was served on the applicant ’s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Proceedings ( Strafprozessordnung CARDINAL ) in force until DATE stated that authorities must not , on pain of imposition of a penalty , work towards the production of suspicious facts or the conviction of a suspect by inciting a person to commit , continue with or complete an offence , or by luring a suspect , through the intermediary of an undercover agent , to confess to an offence with the aim of using such confession in court proceedings .

Police undercover operations were regulated in ORG CARDINALd to CARDINALe of LAW of LAW ( Sicherheitspolizeigesetz ) .

Under LAW the CARDINAL possible remedies against a judgment passed by a bench of judges at ORG are a plea of nullity ( PERSON ) and an appeal against sentence ( GPE ) . A plea of nullity has to be addressed to ORG while an appeal against sentence has to be addressed to ORG . The remedies can be lodged either in the same written submission or separately . If the accused files a single written submission for both remedies , ORG will examine the case first .

A plea of nullity before ORG can be based on the specific grounds set out in LAW . The list of grounds for invalidity ‒ which is exhaustive ‒ deals with procedural aspects such as the ( alleged ) bias of a judge or a lack of the requisite representation by a defence counsel during the trial , and also aspects of the merits such as misinterpretation of the law .

According to LAW , a plea of nullity can be raised if during the main hearing the court in question has failed to deal with a request from an accused or if a [ procedural ] decision disregarding his request or conflicting with his declared objection has been taken by ORG and there has been a violation of either the law or fundamental procedural principles which seek to safeguard compliance with human rights ‒ especially LAW ‒ or other fundamental rights of the prosecution or the defense .

Under LAW § CARDINAL.CARDINALb of LAW , a plea of nullity can be raised if there are circumstances in which the act concerned is no longer a punishable offence or can no longer be prosecuted .

According to LAW the plea of nullity has to name separately and specifically the grounds for invalidity about which it is complaining , otherwise ORG will not take these grounds into consideration .

If ORG finds CARDINAL or more grounds for invalidity well founded , it quashes the judgment and orders a re - trial .

NORP If ORG has dismissed the plea of nullity and the applicant has also challenged the sentence , ORG will transfer the case file to ORG . In this case , or if the accused has merely filed an appeal against the sentence , ORG will only examine the sentence imposed and not consider alleged errors in proceedings , the law or the establishment of facts by ORG . It may examine only the parameters which relate to ORG decision on the sentence and therefore re - examines the weighing up of mitigating and aggravating circumstances undertaken by the first - instance court . If ORG detects an imbalance in the weighing up of the first - instance court , it readjusts this balance by reviewing the sentence .


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

NORP The applicant , Ms Wiktoria Strzelecka , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON , 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 DATE the applicant signed a lease contract with ORG , “ ORG ” ( “ Towarzystwo Budownictwa Społecznego ” ) concerning a CARDINAL - room flat located in GPE . The applicant knew the flat as it had been rented until then by her son - in - law . The flat measured QUANTITY and the applicant was the only tenant . The applicant was to pay rent in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .

The building in which the applicant ’s flat was located was owned by GPE but managed by the ORG , a legal entity designed to provide low - rent housing to households of modest means and financed by the ORG - owned ORG ( PERSON ) . From DATE the applicant ’s flat was managed by another company . The Government submitted that it had never been considered as social housing but as low - rent accommodation for the less well - off .

The applicant ’s rent , which included central heating , cold water and other charges , was increased on several occasions , and presently amounts to ORG CARDINAL .

The applicant has been paying the rent irregularly , apparently contesting the amount due for central heating , as the flat was always cold because of the poor state of the windows . Moreover , her heating costs increased as she had refused to install indicators of actual consumption of heat on her radiators . After DATE she accumulated substantial debt . In DATE the ORG obtained a court judgment against the applicant , and her granddaughter who was living with her , ordering them to pay maintenance charges . It appears that the court bailiff seized part of the applicant ’s pension in execution of this order .

NORP In DATE the GPE agreed to cancel the applicant ’s debt in the amount of ORG provided that the applicant continued to pay DATE rent . Afterwards another debt of ORG was not cancelled because the applicant had failed to comply with one of the conditions for cancellation that is to continue paying the maintenance in full . In DATE the municipality again negotiated with the applicant to cancel her debts upon the condition of her payment of the rent in full in DATE . The municipality agreed to cancel PERCENT of overdue interest and PERCENT of the main debt . The remainder of the applicant ’s debt of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was spread into CARDINAL payments of PLN CARDINAL .

Since DATE the applicant has been receiving a DATE housing benefit in an amount which started at FAC and recently reached ORG CARDINAL . This benefit , designed to help cover heating costs during DATE , was paid directly to the company managing the building . It was paid on the basis of administrative decisions which covered period from DATE to DATE . It appears that since DATE the applicant has been receiving the benefit without interruption .

Since DATE the applicant has repeatedly complained to the ORG , and later to the municipality , that the state of the flat was unsatisfactory . She submitted that the windows were very old and poor fitted , and she could not open or close them .

DATE the ORG had acknowledged that the windows needed to be changed . However , it has been postponing the works due to the applicant ’s non - payment of her debt .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the ORG in which she sought payment and to be allocated another flat .

As part of the proceedings an expert opinion was ordered . The opinion submitted to the court on CARDINAL DATE stated , in so far as relevant :

... “ CARDINAL . The windows are in very poor general condition . The glass is broken in CARDINAL windows and cracked in others . ORG ’s frames and glass are covered in dust and were not cleaned in DATE . The wooden frames are dirty and have paint missing , I think they must last have been painted DATE . CARDINAL the putty is missing , and the glass is actually sticking out of the frame , which causes a real danger of the glass falling out on to people on the pavement . No sign of using widely available window seals . I consider that due to dirty windows the amount of light in the flat is reduced by PERCENT .

NORP In general all the walls are covered with mould , dirt and residue from the gas cooker . The same applies to the furniture . There is a discernible smell of mustiness in the flat .

The air vents ( size QUANTITY ) in the kitchen and bathroom are not working properly , no draught was perceived ; the total surface of the openings was covered with dust and soot , which is probably what blocked them ... ”

In his conclusions the expert considered that the damp and mould had been caused by the total lack of ventilation in the applicant ’s flat . The current state of the flat was “ an insult to basic requirements for inhabited accommodations ” . The state of the windows places passers - by at risk , and they need urgent replacement . In general the expert considered that the applicant should be held responsible for the state of the flat due to her total lack of care , cleaning and maintenance . The expert pointed to the fact that in the neighbouring flats the windows were as old as the applicant ’s but well maintained and the flats had not problem of mould or ventilation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . The court established that at the time of signing the lease agreement the applicant had acknowledged the good overall state of the flat except for a broken glass in one window . She noticed no mould or problems with closing and opening of the windows .

The court concluded that the state of the flat had deteriorated due to the applicant ’s negligence in ventilating and cleaning it . The court also agreed with the ORG that replacement of the windows may be made conditional upon the applicant paying the debts she owned to the community .

The applicant lodged an appeal but on DATE ORG dismissed it .

In DATE an emergency chimney sweep was organised . At the same time the Mayor confirmed to the applicant that “ the GPE ’s obligations as regards refurbishment of the flat will be fulfilled after you pay your financial debts for the [ maintenance of the ] flat . ”

The windows remain unchanged and no works have been carried out .

It appears that the applicant occupied from the beginning her flat together with her granddaughter , M , and her child . In DATE a second child was born . Since then the applicant has been occupying the small bedroom and her granddaughter , with her children , the other room .

NORP The relationship between the applicant and her granddaughter deteriorated . The applicant claims to have been insulted and beaten up by her granddaughter on many occasions . On DATE the granddaughter was convicted by ORG of verbal and physical abuse of the applicant . She was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG for eviction of her granddaughter and her children .

On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s action and ordered the eviction of M. , with her CARDINAL children ( file no . I C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . At the same time it ordered that the defendants be allocated social housing by the municipality . The execution of the judgment was to be stayed until they had been allocated social housing .

On DATE the judgment became final and binding .

NORP The applicant asked the municipality on many occasions to enforce the judgment by granting social housing to M and her children .

The NORP Mayor replied to the applicant on CARDINAL May and DATE and on DATE that her request would be dealt with speedily .

On DATE M rejected the municipality ’s offer of a social housing . Afterwards in DATE the municipality proposed her another flat for rent which she accepted .

The applicant submitted that in DATE her granddaughter had been granted a social housing and had moved out .

In DATE the applicant was declared as suffering of permanent disability since DATE . It appears that she suffers of heart and lungs problems and has impaired hearing .

DATE to the Act of DATE on the protection of the rights of tenants , housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to LAW ( LOC o ochronie praw lokatorów , mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie kodeku cywilnego , “ the DATE LAW ) added a new provision ( subsection ( CARDINAL ) ) to section CARDINAL , which makes the municipality liable , under the rules of tort , for any damage sustained by the landlord on account of the municipality ’s failure to provide the tenant with social housing . This provision reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the municipality has not provided social housing to a person who is entitled to it by virtue of a judgment , the landlord shall have a claim for damages against the municipality on the basis of LAW . ”

Consequently , the municipality ’s failure is statutorily deemed to be an “ unlawful omission ” within the meaning of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . ORG , municipality or another legal person wielding public power by virtue of the law shall be liable for damage caused by an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of that power . ”

ORG , in its ruling of DATE ( no . CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) concerning a claim for damages under section PERSON ) of the CARDINAL Act read in conjunction with LAW , confirmed that a landlord was entitled to full compensation for any damage sustained on account of a municipality ’s failure to provide social housing to a tenant .

Pursuant to section DATE ) of the CARDINAL Act , as long as the municipality has not supplied social housing , the tenant pays the same amount of rent that he would have paid if the tenancy had not been terminated . According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , other tenants in respect of whom the tenancy has terminated and who have not vacated the flat pay compensation to a landlord corresponding to the market - related rent that the landlord could normally receive . If such compensation does not cover losses incurred by a landlord , he may seek supplementary compensation .

Section DATE CARDINAL Act provides that the provisions protecting the rights of the owner of the property may also be used to protect rights of a tenant .

According to the Law of DATE the tenant is supposed to keep his flat in a proper technical , hygienic and sanitary state . The tenant is responsible for minor repairs relating to normal use of the object of lease in particular repair and maintenance of windows and doors and paining of the doors and windows .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE he was arrested by ORG of GPE on suspicion of having committed a robbery in aggravated circumstances . On DATE he was charged with that crime .

On DATE the ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for DATE .

On DATE the applicant was also charged with murder .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention to DATE , namely to DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention to DATE , namely to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG for consideration on the merits .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in the case and ordered , inter alia , that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be left unchanged .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of robbery and murder . It convicted him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his property .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh trial .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of robbery and murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court also ordered the confiscation of the applicant ’s property .

The applicant lodged an appeal . No further information was provided .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Borgenhaugen .

On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) convicted the applicant inter alia on a charge of attempted rape committed against Ms A during TIME in a car parked near a petrol station . At the time Ms A and the applicant had been DATE and DATE , respectively . Together they had left a party at Mr C ’s home in order to buy mineral water at the petrol station . The applicant had borrowed the car from Mr D , Ms A ’s boyfriend . They had both attended a party at Mr C ’s home DATE before but they did not know each other . The applicant and Ms A had been sitting in the car talking and listening to music for a while before they had decided to return to the party . As the car ’s battery was flat it would not start . The applicant had called a friend , Mr B , who worked as a taxi driver and who collected him and Ms A and brought them back to Mr C ’s home . ORG did not find credible the applicant ’s explanation that he and Ms A had kissed and to a little extent touched one another voluntarily and that he had not forcibly attempted to rape her .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , hearing the applicant ’s appeal with a jury , convicted him on the attempted rape charge and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment on account of this ( and a number of other offences of which he had been charged in the same proceedings ) . It ordered him to pay MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY at that time ) in compensation to ORG for non - pecuniary damage .

In its reasoning the High Court described in detail how the applicant , after he had called Mr B ( who could not come straight away ) , had attempted to obtain sexual contact with Ms A by force . It stated that in the beginning , when the applicant had tried to kiss and touch her , Ms A had told him that she was not interested because she was the girlfriend of Mr D and slapped the applicant . The applicant had not stopped , but had moved himself over to her seat and held her arms behind the neck support . Ms A tried to defend herself and after a while the situation involved into a fight between them , in which she had been physically inferior and had to come to terms with the situation . The applicant had had such control over Ms A that he was also able to call Mr B again and the fact that Mr B was on his way had not hindered the applicant from continuing , until the moment when the lights from Mr B ’s car appeared .

ORG also noted that Mr B had testified that he had not noticed anything conspicuous about Ms A ; she had been cheerful and friendly and her clothes had not been in disorder . However , this did not suggest , in ORG view , that she had not been exposed to sexual abuse causing a great burden on her . She had managed to pull herself together when Mr B had arrived . Her reaction had been expressed vis - à - vis others only when she and the applicant had returned to PERSON home , where Ms A cried and was in great despair . Her boyfriend , Mr D , had understood that something was very wrong . After opening herself gradually to him , she had explained what had happened .

During a pause in the oral proceedings before ORG , after both PERSON and the applicant had been heard , one of the jurors –“J ” – had informed the presiding judge of ORG about her previous contacts with PERSON When the hearing resumed after the break , the presiding judge informed the public prosecutor , counsel for the defence and ORG assistant advocate ( bistandsadvokat ) about the matter . Counsel for the defence requested that J be disqualified from taking part in the further proceedings on grounds of lack of impartiality . ORG assistant advocate ( bistandsadvokat for offeret ) supported counsel ’s motion . The public prosecutor expressed understanding for the motion without taking a stance .

The applicant ’s contestation of ORG ’s impartiality was made with reference to section CARDINAL of ORG ( domstolloven – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW . According to the relevant court record , counsel for the defence had stated :

“ Counsel stated that he had been informed by ORG presiding judge and the other members of the court , that [ J ] [ who was a member of the jury ] had informed the presiding judge that she was the foster mother of a child who had been a pupil in the same school class as the victim , and that she had had contacts with the victim in connection with birthday celebrations at her home . [ J ] thought that she could recall knowing that the victim had participated in class outings which [ J ] had attended as a parent . The presiding judge had further informed counsel that [ J ] did not have any further personal knowledge of the victim , but she had a personal view [ bilde ] of her as a calm girl . Last time there had been any contact between the victim and [ J ] dated far back in time . ”

The High Court withdrew to deliberate on the issue and decided that J ought not to withdraw . It pointed out that a member might be disqualified if the person in question had particular reasons for identifying himself or herself with the victim or if there were any other circumstances to the effect that he or she had a prejudging attitude because of prior knowledge of the victim . However , that was not the situation in the present case . ORG observed that “ the jury member had formed a picture [ bilde ] of the victim from DATE where she at the time had experienced her as a quiet and calm person ” . However , it could not see that this was capable of influencing J ’s attitude to the sustainability of the victim ’s explanation and ORG ’s assessment of the question of guilt in the case . In particular the contact had been sporadic DATE and ORG did not find that such a contact was capable of influencing , in CARDINAL way or another , the assessment in the criminal case . ORG had special regard to the fact that the parties to the case had requested that J recuse herself , but it found the absence of partiality so clear in this case that this could not be decisive .

Consequently , juror PERSON took part in the entire trial before ORG , including the jury ’s deliberations and vote on the questions put to it by the presiding judge on the charge of attempted rape . After the jury had answered the questions in the affirmative and the professional judges had confirmed the jury ’s verdict , she took part , together with the other CARDINAL jurors selected by drawing of lots , in the deliberations with the professional judges on the question of sentencing and award of compensation of non - pecuniary damage to the victim PERSON

The applicant appealed against ORG procedure to ORG ( PERSON ) , arguing that ORG ’s participation had been incompatible with section CARDINAL of ORG and LAW .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

NORP The majority did not consider that J ’s knowledge of the victim from her attendance at birthday parties and class outings with the victim in itself indicated an identification with the victim or weakened in any other way the confidence in J ’s impartiality . It had involved sporadic contacts , not a personal knowledge , and the contacts dated DATE in time . Neither had counsel for the defence alleged before ORG that this was a sufficient ground for disqualification .

Nor could the mere fact that the juror in question had formed a picture of the victim disqualify her . When it was deemed acceptable that a juror may have some prior knowledge of a victim , it ought also to be accepted that the juror has formed a picture of the latter . Therefore , the question was whether the fact that the juror had stated this to the presiding judge and the matter had thereafter been repeated by the defence counsel in open court would bring the matter into a different light .

In the majority ’s view , a statement that CARDINAL had a picture of a young woman CARDINAL had previously met when she was younger , as a quiet and calm girl , could hardly be perceived as an expression of an assessment of the person ’s credibility or give the impression of identification with , or particular sympathies for , her . This was a neutral value judgment ; an observation about the child ’s inconspicuous conduct . It could possibly be maintained that one could draw the conclusion that a calm girl would hardly make a fuss without any justifications for doing so , which suggested that Ms A ’s crying and despair after she returned after the drive was a sign that she had actually been exposed to an attempted rape . However , there was no basis for such a conclusion and there was in any event no reason for attaching weight to such a possibility . J ’s information about Ms A had emerged after she had given evidence to ORG for TIME . At that point , the jury , including J , had a good opportunity to form an independent and updated picture of the victim as a person . That defence counsel and the assistant advocate had requested that J withdraw could not be decisive . Accordingly , there were no particular circumstances capable of calling into doubt J ’s impartiality for the purposes of section CARDINAL of ORG , as interpreted in the light of LAW .

The minority considered that the assessment of the impartiality issue ought to take as a starting point that the case concerned a serious and stigmatising accusation against the defendant . There was a lot at stake for the victim , as she could easily perceive a verdict acquitting the defendant to mean that the jury believed that she had made an unfounded and serious accusation against the defendant . The minority shared the majority ’s view ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that previous contacts between the victim and J could not , of their own , disqualify the latter . What was decisive was whether ORG statement made after she had heard the evidence given by the accused and the witness describing the latter as a “ quiet and calm person ” would lead to a different conclusion . In this regard , the minority took as a starting point that the credibility of the victim was the decisive evidence in this case . An additional factor of lesser importance was how the surrounding persons had perceived the victim ’s behaviour after the alleged rape attempt .

The timing of ORG statement was of considerable importance . For the persons present in court it could seem conspicuous that the juror , after having heard both the accused and the victim ’s evidence , had not confined herself to informing about her previous contacts with A but had found it correct to add that she had experienced the victim as a “ quiet and calm person ” . The timing of PERSON ’s affirmation could easily have given the impression that PERSON expressed a positive assessment of the victim .

Whilst a literal interpretation of “ quiet and calm person ” was not directly related to the credibility assessment , the affirmation was positively loaded and , when expressed just after the victim had given evidence , could at least easily have been perceived as if , according to J , one had to do with a person who would not make a fuss and thus would not make a false accusation about an attempt of rape . That J had expressed a view on how she had perceived her “ at the time ” , was of secondary importance . This was a nuance that could easily be overlooked by a person overhearing her statement and which , having regard to the timing , could hardly be perceived as a reservation with regard to A ’s current character .

An important , albeit not decisive , consideration under section CARDINAL of ORG was also the fact that both counsel for the defence and the assistant advocate had demanded that J recuse herself . Under LAW , “ the standpoint of the accused [ was ] important but not decisive ” ; in this case the “ fear ” of lack of impartiality by the applicant had been “ objectively justified ” ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , DATE , § DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) .


Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

When the present application was lodged , the applicant was in pre - trial detention in the GPE F - type prison . On DATE the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a postcard sent to him , allegedly to celebrate DATE , on the grounds that the postcard “ would stir up trouble ” ( sakıncalı ) because the picture on it incited violence .

On DATE ORG dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant .

Prisoners’ right to correspondence is mainly set forth in section DATE ) of PERSON no . DATE on the execution of sentences and preventive measures and LAW on prison management and execution of sentences . Under that law , ORG correspondence is monitored by a letter - reading committee and may be subjected to restrictions in the following circumstances :

if its content is considered to be a threat to order and security in the prison ;

if it singles out prison officials as targets ;

if it allows communication between terrorist or other criminal organisations ;

if it contains false or misleading information likely to cause panic in individuals or institutions ; or

if it contains threats or insults .

A full description of the domestic law and practice at the relevant time may be found in PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Under PERSON no . DATE a ORG was set up in GPE to resolve , by means of compensation , applications lodged with the ORG . Initially , the ORG ’s competence ratione materiae was limited to applications concerning length of judicial proceedings and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The competence ratione materiae of ORG was extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . ORG could thus examine other complaints such as alleged restriction of ORG right to respect for correspondence in a language other than NORP and refusal by the prison authorities , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Furthermore , according to LAW no . DATE , an applicant may apply to ORG within DATE following the official notification of the ORG ’s inadmissibility decision by the Government .

ORG issued a decree which was published in ORG and came into force on DATE . The new decree further extended the competence ratione materiae of ORG .

DATE of the decree entitles ORG to examine , among others , complaints concerning alleged breaches of the right to respect for correspondence of detainees or convicted persons on account of the non - transmission of correspondence drafted in LANGUAGE . The relevant part of the provision reads as follows :


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The first applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and is currently serving his prison term in GPE .

On DATE the ORG convicted the first applicant of murder committed with special cruelty and abuse of firearms . The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , adding that the murder had been committed for ‘ villainous’ reasons , namely , the applicant was considered to have killed the victim in a particularly atrocious manner , so as to prevent her from reporting the initial abduction and stabbing and thereby to cover up a previous crime .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s petition for review .

On DATE the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant ’s request for pardon , by which he sought commutation of his life sentence to DATE fixed - term imprisonment as well as allowing the possibility of his release on parole .

The second applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and is currently serving his prison term in GPE .

On DATE the Borsod - Abaúj - Zemplén County Regional Court convicted the second applicant of double murder and abuse of firearms . He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s petition for review .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . Both applicants are political activists and opposition leaders . The first applicant is also a well - known anti - corruption campaigner and a popular blogger . The second applicant is a leader of the political movement “ Solidarnost ” .

On DATE general elections of ORG took place in GPE .

On DATE the applicants took part in a public demonstration ( a meeting ) at ORG , GPE , to protest against the allegedly rigged elections . The demonstration had been duly authorised by the mayor of GPE . The number of participants at the meeting was estimated CARDINAL . During the meeting , conducted by the second applicant , the first applicant addressed the participants with a speech calling for fresh , fair elections and describing GPE , the election frontrunner , as “ a party of crooks and thieves ” .

After the demonstration the applicants were arrested . The parties disagreed as to the circumstance of their arrest , and their respective submissions are summarised below .

The applicants claimed that at the end of the meeting they had headed , with other people , towards the ORG Most metro station , where the first applicant had left his car . They were walking along the pavement , leaving the road clear for traffic . Suddenly their way was blocked by the riot police ( сотрудники внутренних войск и ORG ) . Without any introduction or demand , the police surrounded a group of CARDINAL protesters , including the applicants , pressing them against a building . The surrounded group chanted “ CARDINAL for all , and all for CARDINAL ! ” . The riot police then began to arrest the protesters . According to the applicants , no one put up any resistance . They obeyed the police and followed them to the police bus .

According to the Government , at the end of the meeting the second applicant called on the participants to march down FAC onto FAC and then to the office of ORG . At TIME people , including the applicants , began walking down FAC , FAC and FAC . They walked along the road , obstructing the traffic and chanting slogans such as “ This is our city ! ” and “ Down with the police state ! ” At the crossroads of GPE and FAC the police blocked the march and ordered the marchers to stop . They pushed thought the cordon and went on until they were stopped by the police again at CARDINAL Teatralnyy Proyezd . They ignored the repeated demands of the police to stop and thereby prevented the police from carrying out their mission of securing public order . Confronted with this persistent behaviour , the police arrested the applicants .

Both applicants were arrested at TIME and were taken to a police bus .

At TIME the applicants were taken to the LOC police station , GPE . At TIME the first applicant was subjected to a body search , which lasted until TIME His personal affairs , including his mobile phone , barrister licence , watch , money , credit cards , driving licence and some items of clothing were seized . The second applicant was searched as well , and his mobile phone , belt , watch , whistle and a badge reading “ Against ORG and Thieves ” were seized . The list of the seized objects was recorded in the search report . The applicants have been unable to retrieve them , although those objects were not attached to the case file .

The applicants requested that their lawyers , who had arrived at the police station and had presented their authority , be allowed to see them , but their request was refused . The applicants were not allowed to make a phone call to their families either .

Both applicants lodged complaints at the police station alleging that their rights had been violated during their arrest and detention .

At TIME on DATE the applicants were transferred from GPE police station to the LOC police station , GPE , where they arrived at TIME on DATE . They requested to see a lawyer and to make a phone call , but this was refused again . The first applicant lodged a complaint about the refusal .

At TIME on TIME , the applicants were transferred to the Kitay - Gorod District police station , where police reports were drawn up stating that the applicants had been escorted to the police station in accordance with LAW . At TIME further police reports were drawn up in which it was decided to remand the applicants in custody under LAW . The applicants were charged with an administrative offence for refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police , in breach of LAW of LAW . The charges were based on the identical statements of CARDINAL police officers , I. and PERSON , who alleged that they had ordered the applicants to follow them to the police bus to give statements on the administrative offence but that the applicants had pushed them away and had therefore been arrested .

At the LOC police station the applicants requested permission to see their lawyers and to telephone their families , but their requests were refused .

The first applicant remained in custody at the police station until TIME on DATE , and the second applicant until TIME on DATE .

The applicants claimed that the conditions of detention during their transfer between the police stations and in the cell at the LOC police station were inhuman and degrading . In particular , they claimed that they had spent TIME being driven to different police stations without being given any food or drinking water . At the Kitay - Gorod police station they were placed together in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with concrete walls , a metal grill , a concrete floor , no windows and no furniture except for CARDINAL narrow wooden benches . The cell was poorly lit and had no ventilation . There was no sanitary equipment , beds or bedding . The applicants did not receive any food or water until later on DATE when they were allowed to receive a parcel from their families containing drinking water and crackers ; no other food was allowed in the parcels .

The Government submitted that the applicants had spent TIME in transit to the LOC police station and then CARDINAL minutes in transit to the LOC police station , which was not long enough to require the provision of meals . According to the ORG , the applicants were detained at the PERSON police station in an administrative - detention cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m equipped with artificial lighting and mandatory ventilation . They claimed that the applicants had been provided with a sleeping place – a wooden bench – and bedding , which they had refused . They provided a photograph of the cell with a metal grill , a close - up photograph of the bench , showing with a measuring tape its width of QUANTITY , and another photograph showing the same bench covered with a blanket and with a pillow placed on it . The Government further contended that the cells had to be cleaned and disinfected twice a day and that pest control had to be carried out once DATE , in accordance with the cleaning service agreement between ORG and a private company . The Government provided a copy of the service agreement in support of that statement . They alleged that the applicants had not complained about the conditions of their detention . According to the Government , the applicants had been offered food at the ORG police station , but had refused to take it .

On DATE the applicants were brought before the ORG of the Peace to have their charges examined in administrative proceedings . They met their counsels for the first time shortly before the hearing . The case of the second applicant was examined first , and then the case of the first applicant .

The administrative case was examined by the acting Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of the Tverskoy District of GPE , PERSON At the beginning of the hearing the second applicant challenged the judge on the grounds that she had previously found him guilty of an administrative offence and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention . After that conviction the second applicant had lodged numerous complaints about Ms B. and had campaigned against her in his online blogs . The Justice of the FAC dismissed the challenge against her .

The second applicant requested leave to call and examine CARDINAL witnesses , including I. and PERSON , the police officers who had drawn up the arrest reports ; PERSON , the on - duty police officer at the LOC police station ; PERSON , a fellow activist ; and the first applicant . The request was granted in respect of NORP , PERSON and B.

The second applicant complained of unlawful detention during TIME after his arrest , poor conditions of detention at the ORG police station and the acts and omissions of the officials at the GPE police station . However , those complaints were not examined .

The Justice of the ORG questioned the witnesses . Police officers I. and PERSON stated that after the public meeting the second applicant had participated , together with CARDINAL people , in an unauthorised march from FAC , through FAC , FAC and down FAC . The marchers had been obstructing the traffic , chanting slogans and ignoring police orders made on a loudspeaker to stop the march . They ( NORP and PERSON ) had required the second applicant to follow them to the police bus in order to draw up a report on the administrative offence , but he had ignored them , so they had seized him by the arms ; he had resisted , refusing to present his documents and calling out to the crowd .

The second applicant pleaded not guilty and contested the police FAC testimonies . He testified that he had been arrested at the indicated address while walking alongside other people returning from the authorised meeting . He insisted that he had been arrested without any warning or orders from the police .

Witness PERSON testified that he “ had been present during Mr PERSON ’s arrest ” and that “ the policemen had not given Mr PERSON any orders before arresting him ” .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace found the second applicant guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police . She based her findings on the witness statements of ORG , their written reports and the report on the administrative arrest . She dismissed the testimonies given by the second applicant and PERSON on the grounds that they had contradicted the police ORG testimonies and reports . The second applicant was convicted under LAW and sentenced to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention .

The first applicant ’s case was examined after the second applicant ’s trial by the same Justice of the FAC , PERSON In the interval between the QUANTITY hearings the first applicant ’s counsel was able briefly to access the case file of the second applicant and meet the first applicant for the first time .

According to the applicants , the proceedings in the first applicant ’s case began in the absence of members of the public , who were prevented from entering the hearing room . Many were barred from approaching the courthouse , which was cordoned off by the police . Later , during the proceedings , CARDINAL journalists were allowed in at the first applicant ’s insistent requests . The Government contended , on the contrary , that the proceedings in this case had been open to the public .

At the beginning of the trial the first applicant requested that the case be transferred , in accordance with the statutory rules , to a court at his place of residence ; that the hearing be adjourned in order to give him time to prepare his defence ; that the verbatim records of the hearing be kept open ; that copies of the complaints that he had lodged at the police stations TIME be made available to him ; and that CARDINAL eyewitnesses of his arrest , including the second applicant , be called and examined .

The Justice of the Peace dismissed all of the requests , except CARDINAL : that T. and A. be called as witnesses . The first applicant then challenged the Justice of the FAC , unsuccessfully .

I. and PERSON gave testimonies identical to those they had given in the second applicant ’s case . The Justice of the Peace disallowed the following questions to NORP and F put by the defence counsel : “ What orders did you personally give to Mr PERSON ? ” , “ Who gave the order to arrest Mr PERSON ? ” and “ Why were CARDINAL policemen ’s reports identical ? ”

The first applicant pleaded not guilty and contested the police LAW testimonies . He testified that he had been returning from the authorised meeting , walking , together with other people , not marching or chanting any slogans . However , the police had repeatedly obstructed their way and had then arrested them . He insisted that he had not received any orders from the police and had not resisted the arrest .

Witness T. testified that he had seen the applicant ’s arrest . It had been noisy and he had not heard the police officers giving the first applicant any orders before arresting him . The police had announced through a loudspeaker “ Your actions are unlawful ” while surrounding a group of people , and had then begun arresting them . He had not seen the first applicant resisting the arrest . Witness A. testified that he had been walking down PERSON and had seen people in uniform arresting the first applicant on the pavement ; during the arrest the police had announced through a loudspeaker “ Your actions are unlawful ” ; witness A. had not seen the first applicant resisting the police during the arrest .

The first applicant requested that CARDINAL video recordings of his arrest , shot by DATE , be admitted as evidence . He also requested that the court obtain and examine the video footage which the police had at their disposal . Those requests were dismissed on the grounds that the court had no technical means of playing the recordings and that it would be unacceptable to use the devices provided by the defence . Those requests were not joined to the case file on the grounds that they had been submitted at the wrong stage of the proceedings .

According to the first applicant , most of the questions put by the defence to the witnesses were disallowed by the Justice of the FAC . She also refused to entertain his complaints concerning the lack of access to a lawyer , the refusal of a statutory phone call after the arrest , the allegedly unlawful detention during TIME after the arrest , the seizure of his possessions during the search , and the inhuman and degrading conditions of transfer and of detention at the LOC police station .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace found the first applicant guilty of having disobeyed the lawful order of the police . As in the second applicant ’s case , she based her findings on the witness statements of ORG , their written reports and the report on the administrative arrest . She dismissed the testimonies of the applicant , NORP and NORP on the grounds that they had contradicted the police ORG testimonies and reports , and that no reasons for mistrusting the latter had been established . The first applicant was convicted under LAW and sentenced to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention .

On DATE both applicants lodged appeals , claiming that their arrest and conviction for the administrative offence had been in breach of domestic law and in violation of the Convention . They contested the findings of fact made by the first instance as regards the events following their departure from the authorised meeting . In addition , they complained about the manner in which the first - instance hearing had been conducted , in particular , about the refusal of the Justice of the FAC to grant their requests , to admit the video materials as evidence and to call all the witnesses requested by the defence . They also challenged the grounds on which the court had dismissed the testimonies of the applicants and the defence witnesses . The applicants also complained of unlawful detention during TIME after their arrest , lack of access to a lawyer and the conditions in which they had been transferred between the police stations and remanded in custody at the LOC police station .

On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicants’ appeals in separate proceedings . In both cases the court dismissed the complaints about the refusals to hear witnesses and to admit the evidence requested by the applicants . It also rejected the ORG requests to have those witnesses called . It rejected the request to admit the video recordings in evidence because of their “ unknown provenance ” , and it refused to keep a verbatim record of the hearing because it considered it unnecessary . It granted the request to join a photograph of the first applicant ’s arrest to the case file . On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the first - instance judgment in both cases , citing the same reasons .

In the first applicant ’s case the court held , in particular :

“ The Justice of the Peace has correctly established that Mr PERSON had disobeyed a lawful order of a police officer ... , in particular : at TIME on DATE at CARDINAL PERSON , GPE ( near NORP hotel ) , after an authorised public event ( meeting ) , in a park of FAC , he participated with a group of CARDINAL people in a march that had not been notified to the executive authorities , went out on the road and continued walking from FAC , down the side streets to FAC , FAC , and FAC in the direction of FAC ; by doing so he obstructed the traffic and created a risk of accident while shouting out “ Shame ! ” , “ This is our city ! ” , “ GPE without GPE ! ” , “ Down with the police state ! ” . In order to intercept the march a [ police ] cordon was set up at the crossroads of GPE and FAC . Repeated lawful orders to stop and end the march were given through a loudspeaker ; despite that , Mr PERSON with a group of people pushed through the cordon and came out onto PERSON while continuing to chant slogans , and there they were met by the police cordon . [ He ] did not react to the repeated lawful orders to stop these acts and disperse , continued his unlawful acts drawing the attention of citizens and the press . During his arrest Mr PERSON , in reply to an invitation to proceed to the police bus for the issuing of an administrative offence report , began to push away [ I. ] and [ F. ] , trying to cause panic among people , and by doing so [ he ] manifested his refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the police and prevented them from carrying out their duties , an offence under LAW .

Despite his denial , Mr PERSON ’s guilt is proven by the report on the administrative charges ... , the statements of the police officers [ I. ] and [ F. ] [ and ] their testimonies given to the Justice of the Peace at the court hearing .

The Justice of the Peace gave a correct and convincing assessment of this evidence , which led to the conclusion that Mr PERSON had deliberately refused to comply with the police ORG lawful order to stop his actions breaching public order , and continued them in defiance of [ the police order ] .

This evidence , which is relevant , admissible and credible , is consistent . No bias on the part of the aforementioned witnesses or grounds for them to slander Mr PERSON have been established [ by the court ] , including the appeal instance ; therefore the explanations of Mr PERSON , as well and the witness testimonies of A. and T. , have been duly rejected for want of reliable corroboration ; the ruling of ORG is sufficiently reasoned in this respect .

... As follows from the [ escorting report ] and the [ detention report ] , the [ police ] had sufficient grounds for arresting PERSON and for escorting him to the ORG police station , GPE , in particular , the impossibility of drawing up an administrative offence report on the spot . The reports comply with the requirements of the law , in substance and in form . At the same time the court dismisses the arguments of the defence concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty during TIME as unsubstantiated . As follows from the case file , after his arrest at PERSON , at TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was taken to the Kitay - Gorod police station , GPE , where the administrative material against him was issued . On DATE the administrative case was remitted to the ORG of the FAC . The police officers have complied with the terms of administrative detention provided for by LAW .

During the [ appeal ] hearing ... Mr PERSON was examined as a witness . He testified that at the time of Mr PERSON ’s arrest he had been with him at FAC . At the time of arrest [ they ] were on the pavement near the underpass , and did not commit any unlawful acts . CARDINAL people were blocked by the riot police . Then both Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were arrested , virtually simultaneously . At this point the police officers did not give any orders , there was no disobedience on the part of [ the applicants ] . The police officers [ I. ] and [ F. ] did not take part in their arrest ; their court testimonies were false .

Giving its assessment of the witness testimony of PERSON , the court finds it unreliable and dismisses it because it contradicts the testimonies of [ I. ] and [ F. ] , which are logical , consistent , concordant and objectively corroborated by the written evidence ... ”

The judgment held in the second applicant ’s case was essentially the same , including the similar testimonies of the other applicant .


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

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

At the material time the first applicant was a chairman of the LOC city branch of an opposition party PERSON and the fourth applicant was a deputy chairman of the ORG district branch of that party . The third applicant was a member of another opposition party , ORG of Azerbaijan . The second applicant was a member of ORG of an opposition group PERSON .

According to the applicants , they participated in a number of peaceful demonstrations organised by the opposition .

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

The second applicant attended the demonstration of DATE . The first and third applicants attended the demonstration of DATE . According to the first applicant , he also intended to participate in the demonstration of DATE .

Prior to those demonstrations , on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively the organisers had given notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

The ORG refused to authorise those demonstrations at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of GPE – the grounds of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth residential area of LOC .

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

The fourth applicant was one of the organisers of a rally planned by several opposition parties . The rally was to be held on DATE in ORG . The fourth applicant also intended to participate in that assembly .

According to the fourth applicant , prior to the rally of DATE , on DATE , he and the other organisers gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . The information about the rally was sent to the ORG by post and the fourth applicant ’s home address was indicated ( for reference ) as the address of the sender .

According to the fourth applicant , the rally was intended to be peaceful . Its purpose was to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Independence Day and to honour the memory of those buried in the Cemetery of Martyrs in the town of ORG .

It appears that eventually the rally did not take place .

As mentioned above , the demonstration of DATE was attended by the second applicant ; the demonstration of DATE was attended by the first and third applicants . However , the police began to disperse those demonstrations as soon as the protesters began to gather .

The circumstances related to the dispersal of the demonstrations of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the first , second and third applicants’ arrests and custody , and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) .

The circumstances of the fourth and first applicants’ arrests on DATE and DATE respectively , their custody and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in ORG v. PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY others , CARDINAL DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) .

According to the first and third applicants , after being arrested during the dispersal of the demonstration of DATE and brought to a police station , they were subjected to ill - treatment by the deputy chief of ORG , police officer ORG

In a photograph , submitted to the ORG by the first applicant and allegedly taken after his police custody , he is shown with a bruise on his forehead . In the other photograph , allegedly taken before his police custody , the first applicant is shown without any bruising on his forehead .

The third applicant submitted to the ORG a medical report of CARDINAL DATE confirming that he had a broken rib . According to the third applicant , that medical report was issued when he was taken to a hospital after his trial , before he was placed in a detention facility to serve his sentence . He also submitted a photograph in which he is shown with bruises on his body .

The applicants raised their ill - treatment complaints during the administrative proceedings following their arrest on DATE . Namely , in their appeals against the first - instance court ’s decisions the applicants complained that they had been ill - treated during their police custody , and requested ORG to order a forensic examination of their injuries , to question particular witnesses and to obtain the review of the medical records drawn up at their check - in to a detention facility where they had served their sentence .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the firstinstance court ( see Appendix ) .

The appellate court disregarded the applicants’ ill - treatment complaints and their requests related to those complaints .

On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint before ORG asking it to conduct an investigation into the alleged ill - treatment .

On unspecified dates , the applicants were summoned to the LOC prosecutor ’s office and questioned in connection with their complaint of ill - treatment .

On DATE and DATE investigator GPE adopted decisions refusing to open criminal proceedings into allegations of ill - treatment in respect of the third and first applicants respectively .

According to the applicants , for a certain period of time neither they nor their lawyer were informed about any actions taken by the authorities to investigate their ill - treatment complaints . Only in DATE , after making enquiries about the outcome of the investigation , did they manage to obtain copies of the investigator ’s above - mentioned decisions .

The applicants did not lodge a complaint with a supervising court against those decisions .