CASE OF "ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHDIOCESE (GREEK-ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHIDIOESE OF THE PEĆ PATRIARCHY)" v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos

ORG ( Охридска Архиепископија ) , in its original form , existed until DATE , when it was abolished by the NORP Sultan . As stated by the applicant association , after its abolition the territory over which ORG had jurisdiction , which had included what is now the territory of the respondent ORG , fell under the jurisdiction of the ORG of LOC , which in DATE issued a canonical release of those territories to the benefit of ORG ( SOC ) . As stated by the Government , in DATE it was decided that ORG would be restored and continued by an autonomous ORG ( ORG ) . In DATE the ORG seceded from the ORG , and in DATE it declared autocephaly . The Head of ORG is designated as “ Archbishop of GPE and GPE ” ( PERSON ) .

NORP In negotiations which have been continuing since then , on CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL churches signed a draft agreement ( known as “ the LOC agreement ” ) which provided for ecclesiastical union between them . It further specified that the ORG would renounce its autocephaly and obtain widest autonomy within the ORG under the name “ ORG ” .

According to the ORG , during the negotiations and the signing of the LOC agreement , there had been strong reaction by the public , which regarded the draft agreement as “ a scandalous and indecent act of treason ” and , owing to strong pressure by the public , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG ultimately rejected this agreement . The applicant association disagreed that the rejection of the agreement had resulted solely from the reaction by the public and submitted that “ the main pressure came directly from the NORP authorities who stood behind the protests ” .

Mr PERSON , a bishop and a member of ORG of the ORG at the time , was supportive of the LOC agreement . After ORG of the ORG had rejected that agreement , PERSON accepted a call by the ORG for reunification dated DATE ; on DATE he publicly announced that he was prepared for canonical union with the ORG . The Government submitted that that had provoked a public reaction and that there had been street protests in several cities in the respondent ORG .

On DATE ORG of the ORG dismissed Mr PERSON on the ground that , by his unilateral accession to the ORG , he had violated the oath by which he had bound himself to safeguard the ORG ’s unity and LAW ( see PERSON v. the former GPE DATE . ) CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . On DATE the ORG declared the dismissal of PERSON null and void and appointed him “ exarch of PERSON and ORG for all eparchies of the ORG ” .

On DATE the applicant association constituted its own ORG and appointed PERSON as its President . By a letter of DATE , received by the Commission for religious communities and groups ( “ the Commission ” , GPE за односи со верските заедници и религиозните групи ) on DATE , PERSON requested an opinion as to whether the applicant association should be registered , given that “ in all civilised GPE a church , which is older than the ORG is accepted without needing to be registered . ” The letter , which remained unanswered , further stated :

“ ... the true ORG is ORG . It is a legitimate church , recognised by all churches in the world , so all who want to be NORP are welcome , the doors are open . Those who are schismatic should join the schismatic ORG ) . ORG has nothing against the ORG registering schisms ... but it is against the ORG preventing its spiritual and leading operation in GPE ... ”

On DATE PERSON submitted an application ( барање за регистрирање ) seeking that the applicant association be registered as a religious group ( религиозна група ) . In support of the application , the applicant association submitted the following documents : ( a ) a founding decision of DATE rendered by its ORG . Under section CARDINAL of that decision , the applicant association was defined “ as a voluntary , non - profit association of NORP that were not associated with any other religious community or group ” . Its aim was to acquire legal - entity status and to manage its property . The decision specified the temporary place of registration of the applicant association and authorised Mr PERSON to submit an application for registration on behalf of the applicant association ; ( b ) a list of its adherents ; and ( c ) a LAW on the organisation and operation of the applicant ( “ the LAW ” ) . The latter provided that the applicant “ would be autonomous within the canonical jurisdiction of FAC ( the SOC ) ” ; it specified that its temporary place of registration would be in GPE , in the respondent State , “ until it was possible to designate a permanent seat ” ; and that the applicant association and its structural units were legal entities and could obtain and manage property . It further provided that all legal persons that the applicant association might set up could have bank accounts .

On DATE the Commission found the application to be incomplete , and requested that the applicant association submit the following further documents : a ) a copy of a decision appointing the authorised person to seek registration of the applicant association and b ) a copy of the minutes of the constituent assembly . On DATE the applicant association submitted the requested documents .

On DATE the Commission dismissed the application ( се одбива барањето за пријавување ) for the following reasons :

( a ) the application was not submitted by an authorised person . The Commission held that it had been submitted by a certain ORG ( Bishop NORP ) and not by PERSON , who had been authorised to seek registration of the applicant association ;

( b ) the application for registration had been submitted outside the thirtyday time - limit specified in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ the DATE LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had started to run on DATE , the date on which the applicant association ’s ORG had been set up ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;

( c ) NORP relying on the applicant association ’s Charter , the Commission established that it would act as an autonomous religious group in canonical union with FAC ( SOC ) . That the applicant association would operate as part of a foreign orthodox church was , in the ORG ’s view , in violation of LAW . The ORG further stated that a religious community could be established only by nationals of the respondent ORG , and not by a foreign church or ORG ;

( d ) the applicant association had emerged from an already existing and registered religious community , notably the ORG , whose position and role had been specified in the LAW . The fact that the applicant association had sought registration under the name “ ORG ” had implied that its real intention was to create a parallel orthodox religious group to the ORG , which had been using that name ( ORG ) “ constitutionally , historically , actually and continuously ” ( уставно , историски , актуелно и во континуитет ) for DATE . That was not in compliance with LAW , under which CARDINAL religious community could be registered for CARDINAL faith group . ORG referred to a decision of ORG which had found that provision compliant with LAW . It had ruled that the provision had protected people from being manipulated and same - faith believers from being divided into several religious groups ( U.br.CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also argued that the Preamble to the LAW of the ORG specified that it was the canonical successor to ORG . This was confirmed on DATE when ORG declared autocephaly , which was continued by the ORG . The ORG further held that on DATE the ORG had asked ORG ( “ the GPE ” , PERSON за заштита на индустриската сопственост ) to register the name “ ORG ” in its trademark register ( TM CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Moreover , on DATE the ORG had asked the ORG to prevent registration of several names , including the name “ ORG ” , to which it was entitled for historical , religious and moral reasons ; and

( e ) the Commission held that property - related provisions of the applicant ’s Charter were contrary to section CARDINAL of LAW , according to which a religious group was a voluntary , non - profit association of believers .

In its decision of DATE , the ORG further referred to several international documents and a LAW that the Parliament of the respondent ORG adopted in DATE regarding the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP The applicant association complained against this decision , arguing that :

( a ) the application for registration had been submitted by Mr Vraniškovski . ORG had only handed it over to the Commission ’s archives ;

( b ) the applicant association had been founded formally on DATE . On DATE , the date to which the Commission referred in its decision , the applicant association had only appointed the members of its ORG ;

( c ) NORP the applicant association was a new religious community that had no connection with , let alone stemmed from , the FAC , which , in any event , had not been recognised by any ORG ;

( d ) the fact that the ORG had sought to have the ORG add “ ORG ” to its name was irrelevant , since no such name existed in the ORG ’s records ;

( e ) NORP the applicant association had denied that it had been set up by a foreign church or a foreign State . That it would operate in canonical union with another church of same religion did not imply that it had been founded contrary to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ;

On DATE ORG Комисија за решавање во управна постапка во втор степен од областа на внатрешни работи , судството , државната управа , локалната самоуправа и работите од верски карактер ) dismissed the appeal , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons given by the Commission .

The applicant association challenged these decisions before ORG . In addition to the arguments already raised , it submitted that its name was neither identical with nor similar to the name of any other religious community or group registered by the Commission .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It held that the applicant association ’s name had implied creation of a parallel religious community , rather than a religious group as claimed , given that its name was substantially the same as the name of the ORG . The court referred to the applicant association ’s LAW and found that its determination to operate as an autonomous church in canonical union with FAC was contrary to the fact that the ORG had canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the respondent ORG . It also held that property - related rules were in violation of LAW . The court accepted the remaining reasoning given by the administrative bodies . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE Bishop NORP applied to ORG , claiming that the refusal of the authorities to register the applicant association violated the freedom of belief and religion specified in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW . While relying on the decisions of the authorities refusing the applicant association ’s registration as “ ORG ” , he also notified the court that a fresh application for registration had been submitted under the name “ ORG of the Peć Patriarchy ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He stated , inter alia :

“ ... it is obvious that followers of our religious organisation have been deprived of the rights specified in ORG CARDINAL of the LAW for DATE ... ORG of FAC is a religious organisation which should protect the religious needs of , among others , NORP and NORP in GPE . It is an autonomous church under jurisdiction of FAC , notably ORG ... ”

On DATE ( U.br.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG rejected the appeal , which , as specified in the decision , concerned “ freedom of belief and prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds ” . Relying on , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the court found :

“ The complainant did not claim personal protection from discrimination ... but , he acts as a representative of a group of people with which he is associated ... ”

It further stated :

“ ORG has no jurisdiction to decide on the rights and interests of citizens in specific cases before administrative and judicial bodies . Neither has it jurisdiction to decide as a hierarchically superior court and examine the lawfulness and constitutionality of decisions adopted by competent administrative bodies ... the complainant refers to the non - registration as an action , but such an action ... stems from an individual decision which this court is not competent to examine ... the registration of ... a religious community or a group does not determine the religious beliefs and internal religious belief of a person , since expression of beliefs is an individual act , the registration procedure does not affect personal religious belief and rituals , and the court has not been presented with any evidence that they have been violated at any point . ”

The court also held that the appeal had been submitted outside the DATE time - limit specified in the Rules of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , calculated since DATE , the date of ORG decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE a new Act on the legal status of churches , religious communities and religious groups ( “ the DATE LAW ) was adopted . It entered into force on DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant association inspected the register of churches , religious groups and communities ( “ the court register ” ) of ORG , which became , by virtue of the DATE Act , the registration court . From DATE the ORG was recorded in the court register as “ ORG ” . The registration decision stated that in communication with third parties it would use the name “ NORP ORG ” .

According to “ the minutes of the constituent assembly ” ( записник од основачкото собрание ) “ ... at the proposal of His Beatitude ( PERSON ) , the Archbishop of ORG and GPE of Skopje Mr PERSON ) , ORG of ORG composed of ( Bishops PERSON , and NORP , all NORP nationals ) convened a meeting on DATE in order to adopt decisions for setting up and registration of “ the NORP - Orthodox ORG of the Peć Patriarchy ” . The minutes of the constituent assembly were signed by all CARDINAL bishops ( their personal identity numbers and addresses were provided therein ) .

On DATE a decision setting up the applicant association was adopted . As stated in its introductory part , “ at a meeting dated DATE ORG decided to submit a request to ORG for registration of ‘ the Greek - Orthodox ORG of the PERSON ” . It was set up “ as a voluntary , non - profit organisation of NORP who are not associated with any other registered religious community , and , in particular , has no connection with ( the ORG ) ” . It further stated :

“ It is an NORP church in full canonical and liturgical union with all recognised NORP churches in the world . For this reason , we consider that we should be registered as a church , but if the court considers otherwise , we would accept registration as a religious community or religious group . ”

The decision further indicated that the applicant association ’s temporary place of registration would be in GPE , in the respondent ORG . PERSON was authorised to submit the application for registration . He was also nominated to act on behalf of the applicant association ( застапува ) in relations with other legal entities until “ ... PERSON ) returned from exile ” .

The applicant association ’s LAW on the status , organisation and operation of the association ( “ the LAW ” ) provided that it was “ an autonomous church under the canonical jurisdiction of the Peć Patriarchy ” ( section CARDINAL ) . ORG was “ the highest managerial body ” of the applicant ( section CARDINAL ) . It was composed of the Archbishop and CARDINAL eparchy bishops ( section CARDINAL ) . The assembly of archbishops ( архиепископско собрание ) was “ the supreme regulatory , administrative , supervisory and executive body concerning internal , financial and religious self - management ” ( section CARDINAL ) .

On DATE Bishop NORP submitted an application for registration of the “ NORP - Orthodox ORG of the Peć Patriarchy ” as “ one of the churches ” in the respondent ORG . The application expressly stated that the applicant association would agree to be registered as a religious community or group if the registration court found this more appropriate . The applicant association further expressed willingness to submit any documents , if need be , in order to avoid its application being refused . It was also stated that a refusal to register a religious group would be unjustified in a democratic society unless it was proven that the teaching of the group was destructive . That had not been the case with the ‘ “ ORG of PERSON which is DATE ” . It further stated that :

“ ... any refusal to register ‘ the Greek - Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the PERSON is an obstacle to GPE future membership of ORG ... It will not be pleasant , at the present time and place in history , if a judge appears as a persecutor of a church . Any person who does not respect human rights and freedoms regarding association of people on religious grounds , especially if he or she is a judge ... does not differ much from famous persecutors of ORG ... we wrote the above in order to warn that it will be unpleasant if the court does not register ‘ the Greek - Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the PERSON ... ”

On DATE , without reference to the applicant , the registration court sought an explanation from the ORG as to the meaning of the notion of “ PERSON ” . On DATE the ORG replied ( the reply was reproduced in the decision of the registration court of DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as follows :

‘ “ PERSON forms part of the name of ORG and expresses the historical continuity of ORG as canonical heir of PERSON : in the same way the name ‘ ORG is part of the name of ORG . The name ‘ ORG is protected by ORG in ORG . ORG , specifically the Peć Patriarchy , has no canonical or any other jurisdiction over ORG or in the territory of GPE . ”

On DATE the registration court dismissed the applicant association ’s request for registration in the court register ( се одбива барањето за упис ) for the following reasons :

( a ) it was founded by the so - called Holy Synod , as a body , which was contrary to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ( see paragraph DATE below ) according to which a decision to establish a religious entity was to be taken by the founding members at a constituent assembly . No such assembly had been held in the applicant ’s case ;

( b ) the application for registration concerned an organisation which had not been provided for under LAW . Its name did not specify whether it was a church , religious community or religious group . On the contrary , it implied that it was a divine organisation , which would operate as an autonomous NORP under the canonical jurisdiction of LOC . “ It did not state that it was a voluntary organisation of physical persons ” as required under LAW ;

( c ) the intended name of the applicant association included names or terms that were part of or indicated a relationship with the official names of GPE or religious communities or canonical territories already registered and under foreign jurisdiction . In this connection it held that the term “ NORP ” ( Грко ) was an LANGUAGE translation of “ ORG ” . Its use was not in conformity with the DATE LAW ) ) . The “ ORG ” partly covered the generic and historical name of the ORG ; it did not differ from the latter ’s registered name . That name ( ORG ) has been used by the FAC “ constitutionally , historically , actually and continuously ” for DATE , and only the ORG had the “ historical , religious , moral and substantive right ” to use it . In this connection the court held that the legal status , name and official insignia of the ORG were safeguarded by the DATE LAW . That the applicant ’s intended name implied that it was under the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign church was in contravention of the DATE Act and other laws . It was so because the ORG had canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the respondent ORG . It was only formally indicated that the applicant association would operate as an autonomous church . If registration was granted “ it would operate in the territory of the respondent ORG as part of a foreign orthodox church ... it would operate and be managed autonomously within the canonical jurisdiction of the Peć Patriarchy , notably ( the SOC ) ... which had no canonical or any other jurisdiction over ( the ORG ) or in the territory of ( the respondent ORG ) . ” That was in violation of LAW on LAW , LAW ;

( d ) the founding decision had specified only the temporary place of registration of the applicant association , without specifying “ a specific seat and address ” ( точно одредено седиште и адреса ) , as required under LAW ) of the DATE Act ; and

( e ) Bishop NORP was nominated to act on behalf ( застапува ) of the applicant association , but not to represent ( претставува ) it , as required under section CARDINAL LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act .

The registration court concluded that the applicant association ’s registration would run counter to the DATE Act . It further stated that :

“ ( such a registration would violate ) the freedom of religion ... of all physical persons , which they manifest through already registered religious communities . It would also violate the legitimate legal status of other voluntary associations of persons recorded in the court register ... their management bodies , hierarchy , competencies , titles , religious activities ... ”

The applicant appealed , arguing ( i ) that the court had erred when seeking “ an expert opinion ” about the meaning of “ Peć Patriarchy ” from the ORG , which was not neutral ; ( ii ) that the registration of the ORG in DATE under the name “ ORG ” had been unlawful . In this connection , the applicant submitted extracts from several media reports published at the time , according to which the competent body of the ORG , at its meeting held on CARDINAL and CARDINAL October CARDINAL , had refused to change the name in its LAW ; ( iii ) that the ORG had applied to the Bureau for registration of the name “ ORG ” as a trademark was irrelevant , since LAW concerned goods and services and not religious organisations . In this connection , the applicant argued that , in any event , the ORG had confirmed that on DATE the ORG had requested registration of CARDINAL trademarks , including the trademark “ ORG ” . However , the ORG had never paid the registration fee for any of the trademarks for which registration had been sought . Consequently , those names were never registered as trademarks , nor were trademark certificates ever issued ; ( iv ) the applicant association was set up by CARDINAL founding members who had signed the minutes of the constituent assembly held on DATE . Consequently , the court had been wrong to hold that the founding decision had been rendered by the applicant association ’s ORG , as that body had no legal capacity to act before the applicant association was registered ; ( v ) no reasonable explanation had been given as to why the applicant association ’s intended name did not imply that it concerned a religious organisation ; ( vi ) the court ’s interpretation that the expression “ NORP ” was an LANGUAGE translation of “ ORG ” was wrong ; ( vii ) the intended name of the applicant association was different from the name of any registered religious organisation , including the name of the ORG to which “ ORG ” had been unlawfully added . In this connection the applicant stated “ ( it ) differs from the ORG , with which we refuse to be associated . ” It further submitted that the court had allowed registration of CARDINAL churches despite the fact that their names were substantially the same , namely “ ORG ( church of the NORP of DATE ) in GPE ” and “ ORG in GPE ” . It concluded the discussion under this head by saying that “ had the court had difficulty with the intended name , it could have raised that issue in written correspondence and we would have replied . This clearly suggests that the court would refuse to register [ the applicant association ] under any name ” ; ( viii ) the registration court had given unsubstantiated explanations of a theological and historical nature favourable to the ORG ; ( ix ) the applicable legislation did not preclude a religious community from being in canonical union with other churches in the world ; ( x ) the refusal to register the applicant association violated the freedom of religion of the orthodox NORP and NORP in the respondent ORG , as the intended name suggested that it represented those communities ; and ( PERSON ) lastly , the applicant association reiterated that it was ready to rectify any error the registration court might ask it to .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant association ’s appeal , reiterating the reasoning given by the registration court .

On an unspecified date thereafter , ORG ( Bishop NORP ) submitted a constitutional appeal to ORG , claiming that the authorities’ refusal to register the applicant as “ the Greek - Orthodox ORG of the Peć Patriarchy ” had affected his religious rights specified in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . In this connection , he claimed that the religious organisation with which he was affiliated had not been allowed registration for DATE , and thus had been denied the opportunity to obtain legal - entity status . He stated “ I ’m prevented from exercising my freedom of religious observance in association with other people on a voluntary basis . ” He further argued that without legal - entity status the applicant association was prevented from enjoying certain statutory rights : it could not construct religious temples ; its members could not conduct religious ceremonies ; it could not instruct religion or create religious schools ; and it could not manage its property , nor could it hold bank accounts . Bishop NORP invited the court to consider his appeal as submitted on behalf of all members of his religious organisation . Since ORG had already rejected a similar appeal lodged on behalf of several people ( U.br.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he consented that his appeal be regarded as being submitted only in his name . He further stated :

“ I agree , and after having consulted the other members of my religious community , I know that they also agree , that ORG orders registration of ORG of the Peć Patriarchy under conditions specified by law and we would adjust to any requirements set by the court . If a change in the name is needed , that should be indicated as a condition for our registration and once it is satisfied , ( we ) should be registered . If another condition should be fulfilled , that should be specified and we will try to accommodate it . ”

On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal of GPE concerning “ the freedom of belief and prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds ” ( U.br.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Referring to the courts’ decisions rejecting the applicant association ’s request for registration as “ ORG of the Peć Patriarchy ” and relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE of the LAW , the court stated :

“ The court can not examine the appeal on the merits since the complainant did not comply with the formal statutory requirements before a competent court ( for registration of the applicant ) . The complainant is willing to comply with the statutory requirements for registration , but he has failed to do so in practice and ( he ) does not prove that the competent court was wrong in its judgment that those requirements had not been complied with ... in such circumstances , this court can not rule on the request for the protection of human rights and freedoms in relation to specific final decisions of competent bodies . It is so since the person concerned ( субјектот ) did not take any action in the court proceedings to comply with the statutory requirements , which apply similarly to all citizens . This derives from his request that this court suggest to him what needs to be done for ( the applicant association ) to be registered , which implies knowledge that there were ( certain ) flaws which led to non - registration . The complainant was not a priori refused registration of his religious community by a final judicial decision . The refusal he received was for non - compliance with the statutory requirements . ”

An article published in the DATE newspaper GPE on DATE quoted the then Chairman of the Commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who stated that :

“ not at any price will Bishop PERSON ( PERSON ) be allowed to perform religious rituals or to have a seat in an exarchate . ”

An article published in the DATE newspaper Vest on DATE quoted the following part of a joint statement by the then President of the respondent ORG and the Archbishop of the ORG :

“ The ORG and ORG are and will remain together . Schismatics and renegades should be marginalised , isolated and rejected . The media attention they receive , irrespective of motives and intentions , affects both the ORG and NORP national and ORG interests . ”

An article published in the DATE newspaper ORG on DATE reported on discussions held between the Prime Minister of the respondent ORG and the Archbishop of the ORG regarding certain provisions of the DATE Act . Following that discussion , the majority of bishops in the ORG , as stated in the article , had requested that the ORG should not accept any compromise which would prevent it from protecting itself against a parallel church , led by PERSON , being created .

An article published in the DATE newspaper ORG on DATE reported on the alleged discontent of the applicant ’s followers about its name as submitted in the second registration proceedings . In this connection the article quoted a letter by PERSON in which he allegedly stated :

“ The ( Holy ) Synod was governed by the idea that the name of the religious community in respect of which we seek registration does not betray the essence of our ORG . You know well that NORP does not mean NORP ( by nationality ) of NORP faith , but that name refers to all known ORG . ”

The article continued , stating that PERSON had further asserted that the second part of the name was reasonable because the “ ORG ” was a part of the Peć Patriarchy .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG against GPE and GPE requesting the court to determine the validity of a sale contract concluded between the defendants concerning an apartment in a building partially owned by the applicant and proposing that a note on dispute be entered in ORG . She indicated as the disputed value SIT CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the court issued a decision rejecting the applicant ’s proposal to enter a note on dispute in ORG . The applicant appealed .

On DATE , after several unsuccessful attempts to serve the applicant ’s appeal on the first defendant , the court posted the appeal on the court ’s notice board .

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

Following the applicant ’s supervisory appeal to ORG , the court on DATE reported to ORG that the case could not be given priority .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to give priority to her claims which she had lodged with the court .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s request .

On DATE a third party intervener , ORG , who had in the meantime bought the apartment subject to the proceedings from the first defendant , joined the proceedings by submitting a written statement .

On DATE the third party intervener lodged a supervisory appeal submitting inter alia that since the proceedings were still pending she was unable to dispose of the apartment .

The first hearing was scheduled for DATE but was subsequently postponed to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged written submissions raising the value of the claim to SIT CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the first main hearing was held . The court adopted a decision , modifying the value of the claim as requested by the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request for an interim order .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL further main hearings were held . On the latter date the court issued its judgment partially upholding the applicant ’s claim . The decision was served personally on the applicant and the second defendant and to the first defendant and the third party by posting it on the court ’s notice board .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision .

On DATE ORG returned the file to the first instance court instructing the court that the first defendant should be served the documents related to the appeal in accordance with LAW and that the court should also decide on the applicant ’s request for an interim order .

On DATE ORG requested the applicant to pay the court ’s fees and supplement her proposal to issue an interim order .

On DATE the judgment of DATE and the applicant ’s appeal were served on the first defendant by posting them on the court ’s notice board .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for an interim order . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeals against the judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law on procedural grounds . It held that ORG wrongly applied LAW in allowing a modification of the disputed value at a later stage of the proceedings . It therefore considered as the disputed value the value that had been indicated by the applicant in her claim and accordingly concluded that therefore the disputed value had not reached the threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional appeal . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


CASE OF GORBUNOV AND GORBACHEV v. RUSSIA

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)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The first applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in LOC . The second applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in LOC .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial . His defence was carried out by a ORG - appointed lawyer , PERSON

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant , but not his ORG - appointed lawyer , appealed .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG that he did not wish to be represented by PERSON in view of the perfunctory nature of the services that she had provided .

On DATE another lawyer , PERSON . , was appointed to represent the applicant before the appeal court . On the same date she studied the case file .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s case on appeal . The applicant was in a special room in a detention facility from which he could participate in the appeal hearing by means of a video link . PERSON . was present in the courtroom . She did not submit fresh grounds for appeal and made oral submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant . The court upheld the applicant ’s conviction .

According to the applicant , at the beginning of the hearing he asked the court to provide him with an opportunity to meet with PERSON . in private to discuss his line of defence . His request was refused . He was then removed from the room where the video conference equipment was installed and thus was prevented from following the appeal hearing which took place in his absence .

According to the Government , the applicant had had ample opportunity to communicate with PERSON . prior to the appeal hearing via video link . He did not argue before the appeal court that he had been unable to discuss his case with PERSON . in order to make sure that she had a sufficiently thorough knowledge of the case as to be able to carry out his defence effectively . The applicant stayed in the video - conference room throughout the appeal hearing and was not prevented in any way from participating in it .

On an unspecified date the second applicant was arrested and charged with murder and robbery . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed , stating that he was not guilty and that the trial court had erred in assessing the evidence before it .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG ( acting as the appeal court ) in writing to appoint a lawyer to represent him .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal . The applicant participated in the hearing by means of a video link . According to the applicant , the quality of the sound was very poor . He could not hear or understand the judges . He stated that he reiterated his request to be represented before the appeal court ; that request was refused .

On DATE the ORG gave notice of the application to the Government .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE considered a supervisory review appeal lodged by Deputy Prosecutor General . The court acknowledged that the applicant ’s right to be provided with legal counsel had been infringed , quashed the appeal judgment of DATE , and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court . The applicant participated in the proceedings by means of a video link . He was represented by a Stateappointed lawyer , U.

On an unspecified date another lawyer , PERSON , was appointed to represent the applicant . Prior to the hearing before the appeal court , she studied the material in his case file .

On DATE the applicant discussed his case with PERSON by means of a video link .

On DATE ORG held the appeal hearing . The applicant participated in the proceedings by means of a video link . According to the transcript of the appeal hearing , the applicant agreed that his defence would be carried out by lawyer PERSON further asked the court for additional time in which to meet with PERSON to discuss his defence . The court adjourned the hearing in order to ensure that the applicant could meet with PERSON

On DATE ORG resumed the hearing . The applicant informed the court that he had discussed the case with PERSON by means of a video link . The court heard the applicant , PERSON , and the prosecutor . PERSON did not submit any grounds for appeal ; she only made oral submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant . ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction in substance , but reduced his sentence to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment .


CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ROMANIA – HELSINKI COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF IONEL GARCEA v. ROMANIA

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

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

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and died on DATE in ORG prison hospital . He had no known relatives .

At the material time , Mr PERSON was serving a DATE sentence for a rape which he had consistently denied having committed . On DATE of the criminal conviction , the courts found that he had full legal capacity ( discernământ ) and was thus capable of taking decisions and acting freely upon them .

Mr PERSON was held in PERSON and NORP prisons and prison hospitals . He was diagnosed with epilepsy , personality disorder ( impulsive and explosive ) , polymorphic psychosis and phlebitis of both legs . During his detention he had numerous conflicts with the prison warders , the police and the prosecutor . On several occasions he was reprimanded for “ insulting authority ” ( înjurii aduse cadrelor ) and for self - harm ( inserting nails into his forehead ) .

In DATE , when he started serving his sentence , Mr PERSON contacted ORG from the police headquarters to inform them of his arrest . He also wrote to the association from prison . The association had paid for his legal assistance in a civil suit for damages brought against the ORG in connection with his detention in a previous case and in previous criminal proceedings , and had occasionally given him material support , such as medicine , paper , pens and prepaid telephone cards .

According to the official prison records , Mr PERSON received regular check - ups for his mental illness . He was admitted on QUANTITY occasions to the psychiatric ward of the prison hospitals for DATE each time . While in hospital he was prescribed medical treatment for his condition , which he often refused to take . On a few occasions he also refused medical examinations and often insisted on being discharged from hospital . On other occasions he signed the hospital consent form for treatment and at times he complained that he had not received medical treatment while in hospital .

On DATE Mr Garcea inserted a nail in his forehead . On CARDINAL DATE he was taken to the psychiatric ward of PERSON prison hospital and then to a civilian hospital . Mr PERSON agreed to have the metal object removed from his head , but DATE changed his mind . His CARDINAL statements were recorded by the hospital personnel in his medical file .

The nail was ultimately removed and on DATE he was discharged from the civilian hospital and sent back to the psychiatric ward of PERSON prison hospital .

At DATE Mr PERSON attempted suicide by overdose and as a result fell into a fourth - degree coma . It is mentioned in his medical record that in the psychiatric ward he refused any medical examinations following his suicide attempt and requested to be discharged .

In DATE , after a DATE ’s stay in ORG prison hospital where , according to the medical record , he did not receive any treatment for his phlebitis , Mr PERSON was transferred to ORG .

NORP In DATE Mr PERSON was operated on in a civilian hospital in order to have metal fragments removed from his head ( pieces of nails which he had inserted into his forehead ) . After the operation , the doctors performed a brain scan on Mr GPE , only to discover that some pieces of metal had been left inside his head . Mr PERSON underwent another operation DATE .

According to his prison medical record , Mr PERSON was monitored by a psychologist in order to help reduce the risk of aggressive behaviour towards himself and others .

Mr PERSON alleged that in DATE he had been beaten up by the prison intervention force and then handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed for DATE .

On DATE , in reply to an inquiry made by ORG into those incidents , the prison administration explained that there was no evidence of a breach of prison rules and that Mr Garcea ’s immobilisation had been made necessary by his violent behaviour and had been approved by the prison governor . The official prison records from PERSON prison hospital mention CARDINAL occasions on which Mr PERSON had been tied to his bed : on CARDINAL and DATE and again on DATE .

In DATE , members of the APADOR - CH paid Mr GPE another visit . He complained to them that he had been beaten up on several occasions by the warders . In particular , he stated that on DATE , at the end of a court hearing , the prison guards had pushed and slapped him in order to make him move faster . He had protested . When they had returned to the prison , the warders had tried to push him into a separate room in order to beat him up . He objected , broke a window and kept a piece of the broken glass in his hand with the intention of killing himself . The warders interpreted his gesture as an attack and called the prison intervention forces , who chained him to a bed and beat him until he lost consciousness . He was then transported to PERSON hospital .

The APADOR - CH complained to the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG and ORG about that incident , but received no answer .

The Government submitted an account of the above - mentioned incidents provided by the prison administration , who denied using any physical force against Mr PERSON . According to the prison administration , Mr PERSON refused to allow the prison guards to guide him to a room in order to be searched and instead became abusive , broke the glass in the door of that room and started moving towards the prison guards wielding a shard of broken glass . A member of the prison staff who escorted detainees from the court house dissuaded Mr PERSON from using the broken glass . According to the prison records , the prison staff handcuffed him because they were aware of his mental illness and of his past attempts to commit suicide . As he continued to be verbally aggressive , the guards attached his arms and legs to a bed and requested medical assistance .

Following their visit of DATE , members of ORG complained to the prison administration about the conditions of detention in which Mr PERSON was being held , which they considered inappropriate for his situation . They also urged the prison administration to provide him with medical treatment for his various conditions ; they pointed out that his mental health was visibly deteriorating and that despite his repeated visits to hospitals , he had not received adequate and prompt medical treatment . The hospitals’ willingness to provide medicines for him had been counteracted by the delays with which the doctors had issued the necessary prescriptions . They contended that , in their view , the lack of medical treatment for epilepsy and phlebitis amounted to torture . They also urged the prison authorities to stop provoking violent reactions from Mr PERSON through their attitude towards him and to stop using force against him . Lastly , the members of APADOR - CH asked the prosecutor ’s office to deal more expeditiously with Mr Garcea ’s complaint of illtreatment .

NORP In DATE , while he was being held in PERSON hospital , Mr PERSON inserted another nail into his forehead . On DATE he was operated on in a civilian hospital . He was then sent to the ORG prison hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis , post - extraction symptoms and acute bronchopneumonia .

From DATE Mr GPE ’s condition continued to deteriorate . The ORG prison authorities decided to send him back to the civilian hospital for examination and possibly another operation . On DATE he was returned from the civilian hospital to ORG prison hospital , on the basis that his general condition had improved . The medical records of DATE from ORG prison hospital indicated that the patient ’s general condition was serious . He remained in the prison hospital until his death on DATE . According to the official prison records , he was administered the prescribed antiseptic treatment in the prison hospital .

On DATE an autopsy was carried out and the observations were recorded in an autopsy report .

On DATE the APADOR - CH asked the prison administration to investigate the medical treatment given to Mr GPE and the cause of his death . It raised several queries , in particular how Mr GPE could have contracted bronchopneumonia when he had been held only in hospitals for DATE . It also asked whether the medical treatment had been adequate , given the lack of reaction by the medical personnel to the continuous deterioration of Mr Garcea ’s condition in DATE and DATE . The applicant association contended that although under the provisions of Joint Order No . MONEY issued by ORG and ORG on DATE ( which replaced a similar order of DATE ) , a joint committee had to be set up to inquire into the causes of deaths in detention , no such steps had been taken in Mr PERSON ’s case .

The APADOR - CH asked to be informed about the progress of the investigations , adding that the deceased had no relatives .

On DATE APADOR - CH drafted a report into Mr Garcea ’s death and sent it to the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG in order to help the investigation .

In the meantime , on DATE the prosecutor had ordered a forensic examination of the cause of Mr PERSON ’s death . The medical report concluded that the death had been caused by “ multiple organ failure , as a consequence of a cerebral abscess developed because of the repeated introduction of a metal object , necessitating neurosurgery and lengthy stays in hospital ” . The report also concluded that there was not enough evidence to suggest that there had been inadequate medical assistance in the case .

On DATE the file was sent to the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG , which , on DATE , decided not to prosecute the prison doctors for improper conduct and endangering a person incapable of taking care of himself . They sent the file back to the prosecutor attached to ORG in so far as the complaint concerned allegations of ill - treatment in detention .

The prosecutor ’s decision was communicated to the APADOR - CH on DATE .

The association objected to the decision , but on DATE the Prosecutor General from the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG dismissed the complaint . He considered that the association lacked locus standi to make the objection ; he then re - examined the evidence of his own motion and concluded that the prosecutor ’s decision was correct .

The APADOR - CH lodged a complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG of DATE , seeking to have the file sent back and to have an indictment filed by the prosecutor . It argued that Mr PERSON had not received adequate medical treatment in prison and that his death had been caused by medical negligence in the prison hospitals . It also argued that the investigation had not been exhaustive , as the prosecutor had done no more than provide details of the medical treatment that Mr PERSON had received , without examining whether there had been medical negligence in his case . The APADOR - CH also complained that the prosecutor had not examined the allegations of illtreatment .

The Court of Appeal gave its ruling on DATE . It decided that the APADOR - CH had locus standi , as ORG and ORG had decided , in DATE , that non - governmental organisations acting in the field of human rights had the capacity to object to steps taken by the prosecutor . On the merits , the court found that the prosecutor ’s decision was correct , and was supported by the evidence in the file . It therefore dismissed the objection .

The APADOR - CH appealed . It reiterated that Mr PERSON had not received adequate medical treatment and care , which had led to his death , and that there had been no investigation into the allegations of ill - treatment . It pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to request an expert examination of the body .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the appeal . It reiterated that the APADOR - CH had locus standi to pursue the complaint , but found that on the merits , the prosecutor ’s decisions were correct as there were no indications in the file that the prison doctors had failed to assist Mr GPE or to provide him with adequate medical treatment .

As for the allegations of ill - treatment , on DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG decided not to pursue the investigation on the ground that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest improper medical care . The decision was quashed by ORG which , on DATE sent the case back to the prosecutor , as it considered that the investigation had not been thorough and relevant evidence had not been administered . The court ordered that the investigation be pursued in order to establish :

– the conditions that had precipitated Mr PERSON ’s death ;

– whether there was a causal link between his introducing metal objects into his skull and his death ;

– whether the hospital procedures had been respected concerning the investigations and treatment for his various illnesses ;

– the conditions in DATE which had allowed the self - harm to occur ; and

– whether the internal rules of the PERSON prison hospital had been respected .

The investigation is currently ongoing .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria

The first applicant was born in DATE and the second applicant was born in DATE . They live in PERSON and PERSON respectively .

On DATE the first applicant ’s husband , Mr Ciprian Ionel Piu , went to the forest near PERSON , accompanied by ORG and PERSON The latter was the son of I.D.D. , a local police officer

According to the applicants , they all took part in an illegal logging operation . The person who organised the aforementioned operation was PERSON He regularly recruited young men from the village to do this . He bought them alcohol and took them to the forest without providing them with the necessary protective equipment or with any essential safety information . His practices , known by the locals , had created CARDINAL other victims previously . CARDINAL of the victims had died and the other had suffered serious injuries . The investigations opened into the aforementioned CARDINAL incidents had failed to identify and punish those responsible , because of the alleged involvement of local police officers .

According to the first applicant her husband ’s death happened in suspicious circumstances and the perpetrators of the offence were police officers and others protected by them . She further stated that on DATE her husband went to the forest she and her family were informed by a third party that her husband had met with an accident . They went looking for him and found him dead in the forest .

On DATE ORG was informed about the incident by a third party .

On DATE , the aforementioned police department , in particular police officers PERSON and GPE , carried out an investigation at the scene of the accident ( cercetare la fața locului ) in the presence of CARDINAL assistant witnesses , namely GPE and V.A.

On DATE ORG , namely police officer PERSON , opened of its own motion a preliminary investigation against ORG for involuntary manslaughter ( ucidere din culpă ) .

On the same date police officer PERSON asked ORG to produce a forensic necropsy report . He asked the aforementioned institute to establish the victim ’s cause of death , whether the victim ’s body had signs of violence , and if so what had caused them , as well as the alcohol level in the victim ’s blood .

On DATE and DATE police officer PERSON took a statement from GPE with regard to the circumstances of the accident .

On DATE ORG produced a medical certificate confirming the first applicant ’s husband ’s death . According to the aforementioned report , his death had been violent and had been caused , inter alia , by a closed angle cranium - cerebral trauma and by the resulting haemorrhage .

On DATE the Timişoara ORG produced the forensic necropsy report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It concluded that the victim ’s death had been violent and had been caused by an acute cardiorespiratory insufficiency following a cranial cerebral trauma and a resulting haemorrhage . Moreover , the signs of violence discovered on the victim ’s body could have been caused by being hit with or striking against a hard object in the context of the impugned forest accident . Furthermore , the alcohol level in the victim ’s blood was QUANTITY for QUANTITY .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE police officer PERSON took statements from members of the victim ’s family , including the victim ’s mother and the first applicant , who had asked the authorities , inter alia , to punish those responsible for the death of their relative .

On DATE police officer PERSON took a statement from PERSON with regard to the circumstances of the accident .

By a report ( referat ) of CARDINAL DATE police officer PERSON noted that ORG and the victim ’s family had made repeated requests for the investigated offence to be requalified from involuntary manslaughter to murder . Consequently , he proposed that the case be referred to ORG , which had the competence to investigate such allegations .

In DATE the victim ’s mother also asked ORG to open a criminal investigation against GPE , GPE and I.D.D. for murder ( omor ) .

On DATE ORG noted the victim ’s family ’s requests for a murder investigation and decided to refer the case to ORG , which had the competence to investigate the allegations .

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation ( neȋceperea urmăririi penale ) against PERSON , GPE and I.D.D. for murder . Moreover , he referred part of the case back to ORG for the investigation against ORG for involuntary manslaughter to be continued . The prosecutor held that according to the available evidence and the statements of ORG and PERSON , the victim ’s death had been the result of an accident and had not been caused intentionally by any of the suspects . That decision was communicated to the victim ’s mother .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE both the victim ’s mother and the first applicant joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties and claimed pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .

On DATE police officer PERSON took the testimony of GPE , CARDINAL of those familiar with the events which had resulted in the first applicant ’s husband ’s death .

By a report of CARDINAL DATE police officer PERSON proposed not to open a criminal investigation ( neȋceperea urmăririi penale ) against PERSON and GPE It established that on DATE of the incident the first applicant ’s husband had gone to the forest by tractor together with FAC and GPE , the owner and operator of the tractor , to collect dried wood . While they had been using the tractor to tow a tree the aforementioned tree had started rolling uncontrollably and had hit the first applicant ’s husband on the head , killing him . Because the victim had not been an employee of a company at the time of the accident , what happened could not have been considered a work accident . The witness GPE had testified that he did not know how many people had gone to the forest DATE or any other details concerning the accident . Also , the witness GPE , another person familiar with the events which had resulted in the first applicant ’s husband ’s death , was unavailable for questioning because he had left the country .

NORP The report held that the first applicant ’s husband ’s accident was caused by a flawed logging operation , which had not foreseen solutions that could have reduced or eliminated the risks of him suffering an accident . He had not kept a safe distance from the tree which was being towed with a flexible steel cable , so that the directions of its movement could not have been controlled . Also he did not have the appropriate equipment for working in the forest .

NORP The report further held that PERSON had not been close to the area where the accident had happened , and therefore he could not have been responsible for an act of involuntary manslaughter . Furthermore , the impugned act had lacked one of the elements of an offence , namely guilt . An act which had occurred as a result of unforeseeable circumstances ( caz fortuit ) could not amount to an offence . The suspects had been unable to foresee that event , notably the fact that the tree had changed direction while it was moving , thus killing the victim .

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG examined the aforementioned proposal and decided not to open a criminal investigation against PERSON and GPE The decision was communicated to the first applicant ’s mother - in - law .

The first applicant ’s mother - in - law challenged the decision before a superior prosecutor .

On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG allowed the victim ’s mother ’s challenge , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and referred the case back to FAC

In DATE ORG ordered ORG to reopen the investigation into the circumstances of the first applicant ’s husband ’s death .

On DATE ORG decided to open a criminal investigation against PERSON and GPE for involuntary manslaughter .

On DATE the victim ’s mother lodged a challenge ( cerere de recuzare ) against the investigators of the case and asked for the investigation to be carried out by investigators outside GPE . She alleged that the inquiry had been delayed by the investigators and that they had been trying to unlawfully protect those responsible .

On an unspecified date the victim ’s mother informed ORG that her challenge had not concerned police officer C.A. , who was investigating the case after the reopening of the proceedings , or the prosecutor who was supervising the aforementioned police officer .

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed as inadmissible the victim ’s mother ’s challenge ( cerere de recuzare ) against the investigators of the case and her request for the investigation to be carried out by investigators outside GPE . It held , inter alia , that the victim ’s mother had failed to indicate any of the reasons provided by law for a challenge in order to support her application . Furthermore , there had been no evidence that police officer GPE , had lacked impartiality . The decision was communicated to the victim ’s mother .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ORG questioned GPE and PERSON and took R.S.’

On DATE ORG asked an appointed expert to produce a technical expert report by DATE in order to clarify the circumstances of the victim ’s death and to identify those responsible for the accident .

On DATE the aforementioned expert produced his report .

On DATE ORG took the victim ’s mother ’s statement . In her statement she had acknowledged that she had been given a copy of the technical expert report produced in the case and that she had no objections in respect of the appointed expert or the content of the report .

By a report of DATE ORG proposed to close the criminal investigation against PERSON and GPE It held , inter alia , that once FAC , GPE and the first applicant ’s husband were in the forest they had started moving trees from a difficult area to a more easily accessible one , using the tractor being operated by ORG Before they had started moving a fourth tree , PERSON had been sent to collect some of their belongings which had been left in a different location . Meanwhile , the first applicant ’s husband had attached the tree to the tractor and had signalled ORG to start moving the tree . During the moving operation , the tree had started rolling uncontrollably and had hit the first applicant ’s husband on the head , killing him .

NORP The report also held that according to ORG ’s statement the time which had elapsed between the moment he had checked ( s - a asigurat ) that the first applicant ’s husband was at a safe distance from the tree and the moment the victim was hit by the said tree was very short . Once he had realised what had happened he had stopped the tractor immediately and rushed to help the victim . When PERSON had returned with their belongings , ORG had asked him to call the emergency services . As PERSON had not been able to make a phone call in the forest because of poor cellular network , he had decided to rush towards the village in search of a better location for a phone call . Eventually PERSON had reached the village of PERSON and had managed to call the emergency services . At the same time he had met the victim ’s brother and had informed him of the accident . Subsequently , PERSON had gone home in order to wait for the police and the ambulance in order to lead them to the location of the accident . Once PERSON had returned to the location of the accident accompanied by the police , he had been advised to leave again in order to avoid a potential conflict with the victim ’s family .

The report further held that GPE , the witness proposed by the victim ’s mother , had stated that he had been at work at the time of the accident and had been informed about the victim ’s death by telephone .

The report noted that according to the technical expert report the main cause of the accident was the victim ’s failure to position himself at a safe distance from the tree and to maintain permanent visual contact with ORG in order to determine whether the moving tree had stopped or had become stuck . Therefore , he had breached the relevant safety and security norms for working in the forest and had not been wearing protective equipment , in particular a helmet . If the victim had been positioned correctly , the accident would not have happened even if the tree had started rolling . Another important cause of the accident was the fact that according to the toxicology report the victim had been working under the influence of alcohol .

Relying on the aforementioned considerations and the conclusions of the technical expert , the report concluded that the individuals responsible for causing the accident could not be identified . However , it was clear that the CARDINAL suspects had not been at fault . Moreover , the relevant legislation concerning work safety had not been applicable because those involved in the incident were not employees .

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided to close ( clasat ) the criminal investigation opened against FAC and GPE The prosecutor held on the basis of the available evidence that none of the suspects had been responsible for the victim ’s death . The incident had been the result of unforeseeable circumstances given that the tree had been towed with a flexible steel cable whose direction of movement would have been impossible to control , and there was no appropriate equipment for working in the forest . It would have been impossible for the suspects to foresee the event , as the tree had changed direction while it was moving and thus had killed the victim . Moreover , PERSON was not near the location of the accident at the time . Consequently , there was no connection between his conduct and the act of involuntary manslaughter .

On DATE the aforementioned decision was communicated to the victim ’s mother at her home address in GPE .

The second applicant is the first applicant ’s brother .

On DATE the second applicant and CARDINAL of his brothers lodged a criminal complaint with civil claims against FAC and GPE for assault , insult , slander and attempted murder . They also lodged a criminal complaint with civil claims against an unidentified gendarme for assault , abuse of office , and misconduct . The second applicant argued that on DATE he had visited the first applicant in PERSON and had taken part in a ceremony commemorating his brother - in - law . After the ceremony had ended he had been followed by PERSON and GPE ; the former had hit him , rendering him unconscious . Subsequently , both PERSON and GPE had punched and kicked him . After a police officer and CARDINAL unidentified gendarmes had arrived at the scene of the incident , he had been threatened , caught by the nose , slapped and cursed by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL unidentified gendarmes .

On DATE the Timişoara ORG produced a forensic report concluding that the second applicant had suffered traumatic lesions which could have been sustained on DATE and could have been the result of being hit by or against hard objects . Moreover , the lesions had required DATE of medical care , in the absence of complications .

The forensic report noted that the forensic examination had established that the second applicant had suffered a bruised left eye and injuries to the lower and upper lip and to his forehead . Moreover , it noted that according to the medical documents produced by FAC on DATE the second applicant had been taken to hospital by ambulance and had suffered , inter alia , an acute closed cranium cerebral trauma and contusions on the nasal pyramid , lower jaw and thorax .

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided to close the criminal investigation in the case on the grounds that there was no evidence that the suspects had committed the alleged offence .

The second applicant challenged the decision before a superior prosecutor .

On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s challenge and upheld the decision of the lower prosecutor .

The applicant appealed against ORG decisions before the domestic courts .

On DATE ORG allowed the second applicant ’s appeal , quashed ORG Office ’s decisions , and referred the case back to the aforementioned prosecutor ’s office in order for a criminal investigation to be opened against PERSON It held that the ORG

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided to close the criminal investigation in the case in respect of PERSON At the same time it disjoined part of the case and referred it back to ORG in order to continue the investigation and identify the perpetrators of the alleged offences . The prosecutor noted that even though the victims of the incident had been heard again and they had repeated their earlier statements as well as their request for those against whom they had complained to be punished , they had not asked for additional evidence to be adduced to the case file . Also , CARDINAL witnesses had been heard again in the case , but none of them had provided new information about the events of DATE . None of the said witnesses could have confirmed that PERSON or another person had hurt or threatened the second applicant . CARDINAL of the witnesses had testified that he had seen the second applicant on the ground at the site of the incident and that the latter had told him that PERSON had hit him . However , the aforementioned witness had also stated that at the moment of his conversation with the second applicant he had not seen PERSON in the area and therefore he could not have confirmed the second applicant ’s statement .

NORP The prosecutor also noted that even though the victims of the incident had later declared that they knew the identity of the perpetrators , at the time of the incident and after the police had arrived they had been unable to identify the perpetrators and had stated that they did not know their identity .

The prosecutor further noted that CARDINAL of the witnesses proposed by CARDINAL of the second applicant ’s brothers had not been heard because he had left the country and no substitute had been suggested . Also the applicant ’s other brother , who had also been involved in the incident , was not interviewed after he had lodged his complaint against the alleged perpetrators , and there was no evidence that he had been threatened or coerced to remain silent .

The prosecutor held that even though the occurrence of the incident of DATE had not been contested and had been proven by the available forensic report , it was not possible to establish clearly that PERSON or GPE had committed the alleged offences , as they had not been seen at the site of the incident or in the company of the victim . Given the absence of direct and clear evidence which could have proven PERSON ’s or PERSON ’s guilt , there is doubt that they committed the alleged offences , which works to their advantage .

The second applicant challenged the decision before a hierarchical prosecutor .

On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s challenge and upheld the decision of DATE .

The applicant appealed against ORG decisions before the domestic courts . He argued , inter alia , that the decisions of the prosecutor ’s office had been unfair and unlawful and had both protected and failed to investigate the ORG agents involved in the incident .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decisions of the prosecutor ’s office . It held that the investigating authorities had heard evidence from the victims , the suspects and the witnesses in the case and had correctly established the facts of the case .

To the knowledge of the ORG the investigation against other possible perpetrators of the incident of DATE is still open .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE the applicants or their family informed ORG about the abuses that had allegedly been committed against them and against their family by PERSON , GPE and certain local police officers on DATE and after that date . Moreover , they voiced their concern that the investigations initiated into the first applicant ’s husband ’s death and into the incident of DATE had been suppressed and delayed because of the family relationships between CARDINAL of the suspects and several local police officers . Consequently , they asked ORG for help in punishing those responsible .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE LDIACR informed ORG and ORG about the applicants’ and their family ’s allegations , including the alleged family relationships between one of the suspects and several local police officers , and asked them for an investigation .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed ORG , inter alia , that the issues raised by the non - governmental organisation in its notifications could not be established as fact .

On DATE ORG of ORG notified ORG that its allegations did not refer to acts or circumstances which had clearly attested that certain police officers had willfully ( cu vinovăție ) breached the relevant ethical and deontological standards and/or those concerning the fulfilment of their professional duties .

DATE . On DATE LDIACR initiated proceedings before ORG denouncing an abuse of office ( abuz în serviciu ) allegedly committed by the local police officers involved in the investigation of the first applicant ’s husband ’s death . It argued , inter alia , that police officer I.D.D. , together with CARDINAL other police officers who were his brother - in - law and son - in - law , had manipulated the investigation , had tried to protect their own interests , and had attempted to distort the truth about what had happened on DATE the first applicant ’s husband died .

On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation against the aforementioned police officers . It held , inter alia , that the QUANTITY police officers who were the object of the denunciation were identified as I.D.D. , G.B. and PERSON Moreover , given the statements taken from the police officers and from the first applicant , there was no indication that I.D.D. and PERSON had committed any act of abuse of office , as they had not been involved in the investigation into the first applicant ’s husband ’s death . Also , the first applicant ’s husband had been asked to take part in the logging operation by FAC , and therefore there had been no indication that I.D.D. had incited the victim to commit an offence . Furthermore , there was no sufficiently strong indication that police officer PERSON had knowingly failed to fulfil or had insufficiently fulfilled his lawful duties during the investigation into the first applicant ’s husband ’s death , or that he had affected the legal interest of the victim ’s family .

NORP The decision was communicated both to LDIACR and to the first applicant .

LDIACR challenged the decision before a superior prosecutor attached to ORG . It argued , inter alia , that its action had been based on statements made by the victim ’s family and by villagers . Moreover , the investigators had ignored I.D.D. ’s threats and aggressive behaviour towards the family of the victim , as well as the fact that CARDINAL other similar incidents had happened in the area before DATE .

On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed ORG ’s challenge and upheld the decision of the lower prosecutor . The decision was communicated to ORG .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a NORP company whose registered office is in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter , “ the ORG ” ) instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant company on the grounds that it had an outstanding tax liability for DATE amounting to CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) .

The applicant company , represented by its appointed lawyer , Mr. PERSON PERSON , challenged before ORG the ORG ’s decision to open enforcement proceedings . It claimed that it had no outstanding fiscal debts and submitted documentary evidence in this respect .

At the first hearing in the proceedings the ORG acknowledged that the applicant company had no outstanding tax liability and that the enforcement proceedings had been instituted in error . Invoking Article CARDINAL of LAW of the Civil Procedure ( hereinafter , “ the ORG ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it also contended that as it had acknowledged its error at the first hearing in the proceedings it should not be ordered to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant company .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG allowed the applicant company ’s challenge concerning the ORG ’s decision to open enforcement proceedings and ordered the ORG to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL ; this sum represented respectively the fees of the applicant company ’s lawyer ( CARDINAL PERSON ) , stamp duty and trial tax ( CARDINAL ORG ) . The court held that although the ORG had acknowledged its error at the first hearing it could not be exonerated from the payment of the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant company , as the challenge proceedings were the result of a mistake on its part . The court further noted that the ORG had started enforcement proceedings against the applicant company for a non - existent debt and that the latter had accordingly had to hire a lawyer and pay the trial fees in order to defend itself . The court also noted that the applicant company had submitted evidence to support its request for the reimbursement of the expenses it had incurred .

The ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE . It claimed that the first - instance court had not observed the principle of adversarial proceedings and of equality of arms , as it had not had the opportunity to challenge the amount paid by the applicant company in lawyer ’s fees , which in its opinion were too high .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as unfounded . While holding that the lawyer ’s fees corresponded to his input in the case , the court reiterated that the judge was entitled to increase or to reduce a lawyer ’s fees , according the specific criteria set out by LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court thus concluded that the judgment given by ORG was lawful and well - founded ; it further awarded the applicant company the amount of CARDINAL ORG in legal costs in respect of the appeal proceedings .

The ORG lodged with ORG an application for the judgment of CARDINAL DATE to be set aside ( contestaţie în anulare – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on the grounds that ORG had not examined all the arguments that it had raised in its appeal on points of law ; the ORG referred in particular to the fact that before the Timişoara ORG they were not given the possibility to bring their arguments concerning the amount requested by the applicant company and then awarded in legal costs and expenses by the first - instance court .

NORP In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting in a different formation from that of CARDINAL DATE , allowed the request : it set aside the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and allowed the appeal lodged by the ORG against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which it partly amended . ORG held that the appellate court had not examined the arguments raised by the defendant in their appeal on points of law in relation to the manner in which the first instance court applied LAW of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; in particular , the first instance court had not allowed the parties to bring their arguments concerning the amount of the legal costs requested by the applicant company . Such an omission was sufficient , in ORG view , to justify the quashing of the previous judgments .

ORG then re - examined the amount paid by the applicant company in lawyer ’s fees and considered that in relation to the lawyer ’s input in the case , it was justified to reduce that amount from PERSON CARDINAL to PERSON CARDINAL . It also considered that the stamp duty and trial tax in the amount of CARDINAL ORG were not to be granted to the applicant company , in so far as this amount could be requested separately from the fiscal authorities , based on the PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on stamp duty , as a consequence of the fact that the challenge to the enforcement had been allowed .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

In DATE protests broke in a number of prisons throughout the country regarding demands for ORG to enact specific amnesty - related legislation .

On DATE , according to various official reports , violent conflicts between the CARDINAL main groups of prisoners occurred in ORG . It would appear that a radical group of prisoners clashed with the moderate leaders over how to proceed with the protests .

On DATE the prevailing group of prisoners requested that all prison staff , including the guards , vacate the dormitories . They also reportedly threatened the prison staff with kidnappings should they fail to comply with this request . The prison staff therefore left the CARDINAL buildings in question and the prisoners subsequently , at TIME , barricaded the entrances with furniture . CARDINAL prisoners were thus left without any official supervision . The security situation in the Niš Penitentiary continued to deteriorate thereafter . The prison authorities assessed that there was a very real threat to the life and health of the prisoners who had refused to take part in the revolt .

On DATE the governor of ORG formed a crises team which decided that a large scale intervention was necessary . ORG produced a detailed action plan in this regard . It included , inter alia , the assessment of the resistance that could be expected on the part of the prisoners , the force needed to overcome this resistance and the need to secure the presence of medical teams during and in the aftermath of the intervention .

On DATE , at TIME , CARDINAL special police officers , members of the ORG , wearing helmets with visors , assisted by prison guards and other security staff , entered ORG . The protests were brought under control by TIME

According to the information subsequently provided by ORG , a total of CARDINAL prisoners had been injured and medically treated . The same document stated that the injuries sustained , except in CARDINAL case , were slight in character and had been inflicted by means of blunt force trauma .

NORP The police maintained that during their intervention a certain number of prisoners had offered active resistance . Many also had certain pre - existing injuries stemming from a violent conflict which had apparently occurred between the prisoners themselves prior to the intervention . The police lastly noted that some prisoners had been injured as a result of the general commotion that had ensued in the course of the intervention , including prisoners being trampled over by other prisons and/or pushed against the furniture which had been moved into the corridors .

The applicants claimed that in the course of the intervention and/or shortly thereafter they had been physically abused by the police officers and/or the prisons guards . Concerning the intervention itself , the applicants contended that they had been beaten with baseball bats and truncheons , forced to run CARDINAL rows of police officers and/or prison guards who had kicked them as they passed and , lastly , compelled to lie on a cold , concrete floor for TIME while being handcuffed . As a result , the applicants allegedly sustained various injuries , such as fractured bones , bruises and wounds all over the body , internal bleeding and brain concussions .

On DATE , at TIME , the investigating judge of ORG and ORG took part in an on - site investigation which found a large number of improvised weapons ( i.e. knives , blades and metal pipes ) on the premises of ORG .

On DATE , having reviewed the reports of the police officers who had used restraints in the course of the intervention , the commanding officer of the ORG unit involved decided that the force used had been lawful and proportionate .

On DATE ORG forwarded the TIME of the on - site investigation to ORG ( “ NMPPO ” ) . These TIME were accompanied by several police reports , photographic documentation , and a statement listing the objects which had been found in prison following the police intervention .

On DATE the NMPPO requested information from the police concerning the identity of the injured persons and the reasons for the application of coercive measures .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants lodged their criminal complaints against unnamed police officers and a number of prison guards . The latter were , for the most part , identified by their respective first names and/or nicknames . The applicants urged the NMPPO to : ( i ) establish the full identities of all officials who had participated in their abuse ; ( ii ) obtain the relevant medical records documenting their injuries ; ( iii ) hear a number of other prisoners who had witnessed their ill - treatment ; and ( iv ) ultimately , press criminal charges against all those responsible .

On DATE the NMPPO ordered the police to submit the reports prepared in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the police provided the NMPPO with a list of prisoners who had been injured on DATE and subsequently treated at ORG . The following applicants were among them : PERSON ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and Mr ORG . They were all certified as having sustained different kinds of bruises and/or excoriations . On the same occasion the police identified the CARDINAL prison guards to whom the applicants had referred in their criminal complaints .

On DATE and DATE the NMPPO requested the police to interrogate the prison guards in question .

On DATE the police submitted a report , based partly on statements apparently given by a number of prisoners , to the effect that there had been several violent clashes between the various groups of prisoners on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , resulting in serious injuries and a criminal prosecution . The CARDINAL prison guards were also questioned and all denied ill - treating the applicants .

On DATE the NMPPO requested the police to hear the applicants and the eyewitnesses specified in the criminal complaints .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE police interviewed the following CARDINAL applicants on the LOC of ORG : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG , Mr FAC , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . All , except for Mr PERSON , confirmed that they had been abused as described at paragraph CARDINAL above . Some also confirmed having witnessed the abuse suffered by other applicants and identified the prison guards in question . Mr PERSON , for his part , refused to give a statement to the police , explaining that he would only testify before a court of law .

On DATE the NMPPO decided to reject the applicants’ criminal complaints . In so doing , it took into account , inter alia , the statements given by the prison guards , the available medical documents , the on - sight investigation , and the conclusion of the police ORG commander to the effect that the force used had been lawful and proportionate . Concerning the injuries sustained by the applicants , the NMPPO opined that they had been caused by fights between the prisoners themselves , their falling down the stairs or against the furniture in the course of the operation and/or the ORG resistance to the police who had been trying to restore order to ORG . Lastly , the NMPPO noted that the proportionality of the entire intervention was best evidenced by the fact that despite the large number of prisoners involved , of which some had been armed and dangerous , and the scale of the intervention only a small number of persons had been injured , sustaining , as they did , mostly slight bodily harm .

On DATE the applicants requested from the investigating judge of ORG to establish the identity of all police officers and prison guards concerned , with the intention of starting a “ subsidiary prosecution ” against them ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicants stated that they knew the prison guards by their first names or nicknames only , while the identity of the police officers could be established through their commanding officer .

On DATE , despite a prior negative opinion expressed by the investigating judge , the pre - trial Chamber of ORG ordered that the applicants be heard ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE and DATE , on the premises of ORG , the investigating judge of ORG heard the following applicants : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr Ivica Jonović , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG . All applicants , except for Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON recounted the alleged abuse suffered at the hands of the police officers and/or prison guards . Some of them identified , by first name or nickname , the prison guards in question but none could provide any details regarding the identity of the police officers since they had visors covering their faces . Mr PERSON , however , stated that despite having been ill - treated by the police he did not want anyone to be convicted for the incident and had therefore decided to withdraw his complaint . Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON stated , respectively , that they were not the persons of the same name and surname who had complained of police brutality . Mr PERSON Simonović described his alleged ill - treatment by the police and prison guards but stated that “ out of fear ” he did not want to name the persons concerned . Mr PERSON related that he was sorry to have been involved in the incident at all and would like to withdraw his criminal complaint .

Though duly informed of the hearing held on DATE , the applicant ’s counsel did not attend it . On DATE he informed the investigating judge that he had had to attend another hearing , in a different case , scheduled earlier .

On DATE the investigating judge invited the ORG counsel to provide the court with information as to the whereabouts of a number of applicants who had in the meantime been released or transferred to another penitentiary .

On DATE the applicants’ counsel responded by stating that he was not obliged to comply with this request . The investigating judge should instead have addressed his request to ORG .

On DATE and DATE ORG and FAC informed the investigating judge that CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were not in their custody .

On DATE the investigating judge heard another CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , in his own office . They recounted the abuse allegedly inflicted by the police and/or the prison guards but could not identify the police officers because of their visors . Mr PERSON further stated that since he had only recently arrived to ORG he could not identify the prison guards in question .

On DATE the Niš Penitentiary informed the investigating judge that out of the CARDINAL applicants who had yet to be heard some had been moved to other penitentiaries , specifying which , and some released , specifying their home addresses . It subsequently transpired that CARDINAL of these applicants , Mr PERSON , had escaped from prison .

On DATE the investigating judge of ORG , acting on the request of ORG , heard another applicant , Mr PERSON , who described the alleged abuse suffered in the course of the police intervention . He could not , however , identify the officers because of their visors .

DATE and DATE the investigating judge of ORG received TIME of the interrogations of another CARDINAL applicants , specifically Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , carried out before the municipal courts in ORG , GPE , ORG and ORG . All applicants reaffirmed that they had been beaten by the police and/or prison guards during the intervention and all , except for Mr PERSON , identified by name the prison guards who had taken part in the alleged abuse . Mr PERSON further gave a physical description of CARDINAL of the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated him since this officer ’s face had been visible . Mr PERSON , in addition , provided a detailed written statement containing a thorough account of his alleged abuse during the intervention and subsequently . In support of these assertions he offered the names of the prison guards in question , the name of the police officer who had allegedly beaten him , a list of CARDINAL prison guards who could allegedly confirm that he had been denied medical assistance , and the names of CARDINAL prisoners and prison gourds who had witnessed his alleged abuse and/or seen his injuries .

On DATE applicant Mr Ivica Jonović withdrew his request filed with the investigating judge .

On DATE the investigating judge informed the applicants’ counsel that he had complied with the instructions of the pre - trial ORG and that it was now up to the applicants to decide whether to take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of subsidiary prosecutors within DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

On DATE the applicants’ counsel complained to the investigating judge that he was effectively deprived of the possibility to take over the prosecution of the case on behalf of his clients . Specifically , the investigating judge had , in breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , failed to provide him with the case file which could have enabled him to be informed of the available evidence and of the identities of the perpetrators in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . Also , a period of DATE was simply too short .

On DATE the investigating judge addressed the applicants’ counsel . He stated , inter alia , that the latter had shown very little interest in the case to date , having never sought access to the case file or attended the hearings . Moreover , some of the applicants had themselves indicated that they had lost all contact with their lawyer . Finally , the investigating judge recalled that counsel acting on behalf of subsidiary prosecutors were not entitled to be provided with the case file but could review it on the court ’s own premises .

On DATE the NMPPO decided that there were no grounds to bring a criminal case against any of the prisoners involved in the revolt and explained that they had never had the intent to use force in order to escape from prison which was a necessary precondition for the existence of the crime provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE a number of applicants , specifically Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON , requested from ORG , through their counsel , to provide them with copies of their respective medical files . On DATE , however , ORG declined to do so since this would be in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Based on the copies of the partly inconsistent documents containing medical information , received by the ORG after the communication of the present application , the ORG maintained that between DATE and DATE the following applicants had not received any medical treatment or , if they had , no physical injuries had been recorded in the course of the examination : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . The remaining applicants , in view of the available documentation , seemed to have sustained injuries essentially corresponding to those described at paragraph CARDINAL above . CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Mr PERSON , also submitted photographs of their respective injuries .


CASE OF VEIGA DA SILVA BRAGA v. PORTUGAL

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

Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

On DATE the applicant brought enforcement proceedings against her former husband before the ORG seeking the payment of child support amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant was notified that her former husband had no attachable assets .

On DATE the proceedings were extinguished as no attachable assets were specified pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .