CASE OF SINIŠTAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE respectively . The first , second , fourth and fifth applicants live in GPE ( GPE ) , the third applicant lives in ORG ) , the sixth applicant lives in GPE ( GPE ) and the seventh applicant lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

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

In TIME of CARDINAL September CARDINAL a special anti - terrorist unit arrested CARDINAL persons , including the applicants , on suspicion of associating for the purpose of anti - constitutional activities ( udruživanje radi protivustavne djelatnosti ) , preparing actions against the constitutional order and security of GPE ( pripremanje djela protiv ustavnog uređenja i bezbjednosti PERSON ) and illegal possession of weapons and explosives ( nedozovoljeno držanje oružja i eksplozivnih materija ) .

The applicants maintain that as of the moment of their arrest and during DATE , during police detention as well as when being taken to the investigating judge , they were ill - treated with the aim of extorting statements . In particular , they were beaten , deprived of food , verbally abused , including on the basis of their ethnic origin , and threatened by police officers .

On DATE , when interrogated by the investigating judge of ORG , the applicants made statements to that effect . The investigating judge included these statements in the interrogation TIME , as well as the following : ( a ) the third applicant had a bandage on his head beneath which there was a visible cut ( razderotina ) , as well as a haematoma ( krvni podliv ) on the upper part of his left cheekbone ( jagodica ) ; ( b ) the fourth applicant admitted that he did not have any injuries ; ( c ) the fifth applicant had a haematoma on both shoulders , in the area above both elbows , a scratch on the outside part of his left ankle ( skočni zglob ) , and a haematoma on the left ankle as well as on the outside part of the left thigh , the dimensions of which were QUANTITY ; the fifth applicant also maintained that he had a pain in his right ear ; and ( d ) the seventh applicant had scratches on his left elbow and left knee , and a haematoma on the left part of his back above the hip , and complained that his ribs hurt and that he could barely move and breathe .

On DATE a prison doctor examined the third and sixth applicants . He noted in a medical report that the third applicant had a QUANTITY long scratch on top of his head , a dark blue haematoma on the left cheekbone measuring QUANTITY , a dark blue haematoma stretching from his left nipple to his armpit measuring QUANTITY and a large hematoma above the left elbow . The doctor noted that there were no visible injuries on TIME applicant ’s body .

On DATE the first , second , fourth , fifth and seventh applicants filed a criminal complaint ( podnijeli krivičnu prijavu ) with the investigating judge against unknown police officers for extorting their statements ( iznuđivanje iskaza ) , torture and ill - treatment in the period DATE .

DATE all the applicants save for the third one signed written statements to their lawyers describing the ill - treatment they had been subjected to .

On DATE the above criminal complaint was amended so as to include the sixth applicant ’s complaint to the same effect . The applicants also expressed their readiness to identify the officers who had ill - treated them . In addition , the first and second applicants complained against police officers who had taken them to the investigating judge on DATE and DATE for ill - treating , beating and insulting the CARDINAL of them on those occasions .

It would appear that on DATE the third applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the investigating judge against LAW and several other unidentified police officers . No copy of this complaint has been provided .

On DATE ORG of ORG issued a report concerning the legality of police actions during the arrest and pre - trial proceedings . According to the report , a special internal control team was formed , which identified all the police officers involved in the action . A total of CARDINAL interviews were conducted , both with the police officers and with family members of some of the arrested persons , apparently including the father of the first applicant as well as the owner of the house in which the seventh applicant had been arrested . None of the CARDINAL latter mentioned any force being used against the first and seventh applicants . The police officers involved denied all unlawful actions . ORG stated that none of the arrested persons had been tortured to her knowledge . The investigating judge stated that they had complained about torture and that their statements to that effect had been noted in the interrogation TIME . Medical reports issued in prison stated that the first , second and sixth applicants had no visible injuries , the fifth applicant had “ several scratches and suffusion ” and the seventh applicant “ redness the size of MONEY ” on his left shoulder . The report suggested that the injuries observed in respect of CARDINAL other detainees arrested on the same occasion had been inflicted when these persons had confronted the police officers during the arrest , on which a special official record had been made . On the basis of such findings ORG could not confirm that there were any grounds for establishing the involved ORG responsibility . However , it was decided that all the relevant documents should be submitted to ORG for further consideration .

On DATE , during the main hearing ( glavni pretres ) , the fourth applicant stated that he had been beaten at the police station on his head and body , and his ribs had been broken .

On DATE the first applicant submitted to ORG ( PERSON državni tužilac ) the name of GPE , a police officer who had been on the same shift as the officer who had allegedly ill - treated him on DATE and who therefore presumably knew the name of that officer .

On DATE the first and second applicants urged ORG ( ORG državno tužilaštvo ) in GPE to act upon their criminal complaint . The first applicant also submitted the number of the police badge of CARDINAL of the officers who allegedly had boasted in front of another detainee of having personally beaten the first applicant .

On DATE the third applicant submitted to ORG the name of one of the officers who had been present during his questioning in the police station . At the same time he urged the ORG to deal with his criminal complaint , to identify all the officers who had been involved in his arrest as well as to establish the treatment meted out to him during police detention .

On DATE the second applicant urged ORG to deal with his complaints . He also submitted the names of some of the police and prison officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicants on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . He reiterated that there had been other officers and special unit members who had ill - treated them , who were still unidentified .

On DATE a prison doctor examined the seventh applicant and noted in a medical report that he had reported pain in his spine going back DATE , which pain had become more acute over DATE , that he was urinating more often , his blood pressure was CARDINAL/CARDINAL , he could not walk on his toes , and that his lungs were fine . A part of the medical report was illegible due to bad handwriting .

The fourth applicant submitted to the ORG a medical report issued by a private hospital in GPE on DATE . During this medical examination the fourth applicant stated , inter alia , that he had been beaten by the police in DATE , but that he had not consulted a doctor about that . The medical report stated , inter alia , that he had an old double fracture of the fourth rib , as well as an old fracture of the right clavicle ( klavikula ) . The doctor had diagnosed high blood pressure and prescribed treatment for him .

On DATE the fifth applicant was examined in a private ambulance , and the medical report issued on that occasion stated that he had a chronic post - traumatic stress disorder .

It would appear that none of the above criminal complaints or their further supplements has been processed by the authorities to date .

The applicants did not lodge a compensation claim with regard to the alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG , in a chamber composed of CARDINAL judges , found the first , second , third , sixth and seventh applicants guilty of associating for the purposes of anti - constitutional activities and preparing actions against the constitutional order and security of GPE . In particular , it was established that in the period DATE and DATE the first and second applicants , with CARDINAL other co - accused , had met with some members of the so - called ORG ( “ ORG ” ) in the wider area of GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE , and created an association the aim of which was to undermine the constitutional order and security of GPE and create within GPE a territory with special status , inhabited by persons of NORP ethnicity , contrary to the LOC constitutional order . Subsequently , DATE and seventh applicants had become members of this organisation . The fourth and fifth applicants were found guilty of illegal possession of weapons and explosives .

The first applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , the second applicant to DATE , the third , sixth and seventh applicants to DATE each , the fourth applicant to DATE and the fifth applicant to DATE . By virtue of the same judgment a large variety of weapons , ammunition , and various other objects , such as military clothes , caps , gloves , binoculars , and flags with the ORG logo , were confiscated from the first and second applicants , as well as a diary belonging to the first applicant . A certain number of weapons and some explosives were confiscated from the fourth and fifth applicants . All the applicants , save for the third one , were ordered to pay court fees ( po osnovu paušala ) .

The judgment was based on the following evidence : the statement made by the first applicant to the police , his diary and its translation done by the first applicant at the police station , written confirmation of the search of the first and second ORG flats and other LOC , TIME of the searches , an official report on the weapons found , an official receipt on objects seized from the first and second applicants and relevant photo - documentation , terrain search , including in caves , weapons , ammunition and explosives found there and relevant photo - documentation , TIME of the searches of some of the other co - accuseds’ flats and other LOC , statements of some of the other co - accused , evidence obtained through measures of secret surveillance , including transcripts of a number of telephone calls , reports on border crossings , the statements of CARDINAL police officers who had conducted the searches , a statement of the first applicant ’s police - appointed lawyer who was present during the first applicant ’s interrogation at the police station , the opinion of expert witnesses and a search warrant issued by ORG investigating judge on DATE .

ORG did not take into account other evidence , such as , inter alia : the statements given by the second , third , fourth and fifth applicants at the police station , as these applicants had not been properly advised that they were entitled to use their own language and to have the assistance of an interpreter ; and TIME of the searches of several other co - accuseds’ flats , as the witnesses who had attended the searches were related to those whose flats had been searched ( wife , son , sister - in - law ) .

The High Court considered that the first applicant ’s rights had not been breached in the pre - trial proceedings ( u pretkrivičnom postupku ) and that the search of his flat and other LOC had been conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW . In particular , the search warrant had been issued by the investigating judge on DATE at TIME , and the search had been conducted on DATE between CARDINAL and TIME While the search had not been attended by CARDINAL witnesses , this was allowed by a relevant provision of LAW , which provided for a search without witnesses if it was impossible to secure the presence of any at once and there was a danger that the relevant action would be postponed ( postoji opasnost od odlaganja ) . The reasons why the search had been conducted without witnesses had to be noted in the search TIME ( moraju se naznačiti u zapisniku ) . CARDINAL of the police officers who had conducted the search testified that it had been impossible to find CARDINAL witnesses at the time as the search had been conducted TIME . According to him , this was not mentioned in TIME had been made on the spot ( zapisnik o pretresanju sačinjen na licu mjesta i zbog toga nijesu navedeni razlozi za pretresanje bez prisustva svjedoka ) . However , the search had been attended by the first applicant himself , who had duly signed the TIME and had no objections to them .

The High Court further established that the first applicant had been questioned at the police station on DATE at TIME in the presence of a police - appointed lawyer with whom he had consulted before making a statement . The lawyer testified that the first applicant had been questioned in accordance with the law and that he had not noticed any injuries on him . The first applicant had confirmed during the questioning that he had been writing a diary , and that he could translate it as it was written in NORP . The lawyer was present during the translation of the diary as well .

The sixth and seventh applicants were convicted on the basis of the first applicant ’s statement made at the police station and the contents of his diary , the CARDINAL being compatible . In particular , it was established , on the basis of these CARDINAL pieces of evidence , that the seventh applicant had arrived from the GPE in GPE on DATE , that he had been informed about the plans of the association and had attended a subsequent meeting . In this way , the court concluded , the seventh applicant had manifested his membership of the association and participation in its preparatory work . It was further found , on the basis of the same evidence , that on DATE the sixth and seventh applicants had been informed that the war in the relevant part of GPE should begin on DATE , in which way the sixth applicant had manifested his membership of the association , as well as by accepting an invitation to go to the next meeting taking place in FAC . On DATE several persons , including the sixth and seventh applicants , had met in PERSON and had agreed on how to carry out the planned acts . In particular , the seventh applicant had expressed his support , said he had been to GPE himself to explore the realisation of the plan ( radi izviđanja mogućnosti realizacije plana ) , and wondered if their plans would affect GPE ’s independence . The meeting was concluded by another co - accused ’s statement that the GPE army would enter GPE “ around DATE , that is on DATE , and [ that ] they want[ed ] to do their job ” . ORG concluded that the first applicant ’s defence during the pre - trial proceedings was in logical connection with the contents of his diary . This evidence was found to be further supported by a report on their border crossings , which data entirely coincided with the dates and times of border crossings mentioned in the first applicant ’s diary and his statement made at the police station . Lastly , both the statement and the diary were further supported by an official police report of DATE , which confirmed the existence of all the objects and places described in the diary .

Finally , the first - instance court did not accept that the criminal offences contained in the indictment had been committed in an organised manner as the indictment did not claim that the motive was profit or power , this being one of the mandatory conditions for a criminal offence to fall within the notion of organised crime .

All the applicants appealed against the High Court judgment . The first , second , fifth , sixth and seventh applicants’ appeals , contained in the case - file , included a complaint about the torture and ill - treatment , and a lack of an investigation in that respect .

On DATE the ORG judgment was upheld by ORG . In particular , it was held that there had been no procedural violations in the first - instance proceedings and that the first - instance judgment was based on legally valid evidence , including the statement made by the first applicant at the police station , TIME of the search conducted in his flat and other LOC , as well as the evidence obtained by that search , including his diary .

The first applicant was considered to have been interrogated in accordance with all the procedural guarantees , as confirmed by his police- appointed lawyer , who had not noticed any injuries on him . The same lawyer had also been present when the first applicant had translated the diary , and had signed the interrogation TIME afterwards .

The search of the first applicant ’s flat was held to have been conducted in accordance with the law and , therefore , all the evidence obtained thereby was legally valid , including the diary . In particular , the investigating judge had issued the search warrant DATE before the search . The search had not been witnessed by CARDINAL adults as it was impossible to find any witnesses in TIME . No statement to this effect was included in TIME as they had been drafted on the spot . This conclusion was based on the testimony of CARDINAL of the officers who had conducted the search . As regards the diary , it contained a clear and convincing description of the criminal acts undertaken . The contents of the diary were further supported by the first applicant ’s defence in the pre - trial proceedings , and were further compatible with the border crossing reports , the evidence obtained through measures of secret surveillance , transcripts of telephone conversations , and the weapons found on the terrain ( in caves ) .

The first - instance court had established all the facts , in particular on the basis of the statement the first applicant had made in the pre - trial proceedings and his diary . The first applicant had admittedly changed his statement during the main hearing claiming , in substance , that what he had said during the pre - trial procedure had been extorted by torture . However , this was rebutted by a statement of his police - appointed lawyer , who had been present at the time when the statement had been made . The validity of this evidence was not called into question ( nije dovedena u pitanje ) by any other evidence , but was actually further supported thereby . Membership of an association could be manifested in various ways , and the sixth and seventh applicants , in particular , had manifested it by taking part in the meetings where the activities for achieving the association ’s goal were discussed .

ORG agreed that the criminal acts of which the accused were convicted had not been committed in an organised manner as the indictment did not allege that their motive was profit or power .

This decision was served on the applicants on DATE at the earliest .

On DATE ORG ruled on the first , second , third and fourth ORG appeal on points of law ( zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude ) . They challenged , inter alia , the conclusion that there had been no time to find CARDINAL adults to witness the search of the first applicant ’s flat and the composition of the first - instance court . ORG , in substance , endorsed the reasoning of ORG and ORG . In particular , the composition of the first - instance court was in accordance with the law , as LAW explicitly provided that a CARDINAL - judge bench would try criminal acts of organised crime , and the trial of all the accused was based on an indictment of ORG . The fifth , sixth and seventh applicants did not lodge an appeal on points of law .

DATE and DATE the first , second , third and fourth applicants lodged constitutional appeals with ORG . The third and fourth applicants complained , inter alia , about torture , inhuman and degrading treatment . On DATE ORG dismissed the constitutional appeal considering , in particular , that the complaint about torture , inhuman and degrading treatment was unsubstantiated given that the applicants had failed to submit any evidence in that regard . DATE and the seventh applicants would not appear to have lodged a constitutional appeal .

The sixth applicant submitted CARDINAL medical reports , issued by a prison doctor on DATE and DATE , respectively .

The report issued in DATE is largely illegible . The legible part states that the sixth applicant complained about pain in his right shoulder and problems in moving it ( otežane pokrete ) . There was a diagnosis of naevus sebaceus , i.e. a mole on a sebaceous gland .

The copy of the medical report issued on DATE is partly illegible . The legible parts state that the applicant had pain all over his body with frequent headaches and poor sleep . His blood pressure was DATE , walking on toes and heels was nearly impossible , and it was recommended that an X - ray of the spine be done . CARDINAL medications were prescribed together “ with the usual treatment he [ was ] taking ” . He was diagnosed with “ ORG , lumbago , and suspected kind of ( illegible ) discus ” .

The Government submitted the entire medical file of the sixth applicant . While part of the medical reports is illegible , from the legible part transpires the following .

On DATE , when he was remanded in custody , the sixth applicant was examined by a prison doctor . On that occasion the sixth applicant claimed that he had been beaten and that he had high cholesterol . The doctor noted that there were no visible injuries on the sixth applicant ’s body , and that he already had the treatment prescribed for high cholesterol .

DATE and DATE the applicant was examined CARDINAL times in total : twice in DATE , CARDINAL times in DATE and CARDINAL times in DATE .

During the examinations in DATE the applicant complained about pain in his right shoulder and in general in his arms and joints . He was diagnosed with chronic rheumatism and sinusitis , and the necessary treatment was prescribed . Both times his blood pressure was optimal , and his heart , lungs and other organs were free of any illness .

In DATE and DATE the sixth applicant was examined by a number of specialists including a dermatologist , a psychiatrist , a physiatrist , and a specialist in internal medicine , who all prescribed the necessary treatments . He also had a number of tests done , such as laboratory blood analysis , CARDINAL ultra - sounds of the kidneys and abdomen , ORG , and an X - ray of the upper part of the spine and CARDINAL X - rays of the right shoulder , and his blood pressure was checked on various occasions .

The examinations showed that the sixth applicant had slightly increased triglycerides and high cholesterol and that he had been under treatment for high blood pressure and high cholesterol for DATE already ; he had an ongoing ossification in his right shoulder , which was stated to be usual for his age , as well as in his neck ; he also had a cyst in the right kidney , and the mole on the sebaceous gland for which the treatment was surgery but not urgently required . The medical analysis of his liver , spleen , and left kidney were fine .

DATE , during the interrogation by the investigating judge , and in the presence of lawyers of their own choice , the first , second and fifth applicants confirmed that their mother tongue was NORP , but that they spoke NORP well and that they did not need an interpreter . It is also clear from the case file that the first applicant is a school teacher of the NORP language in GPE . The other applicants were interrogated with the assistance of an interpreter . The first and second applicants confirmed that they had officially - appointed lawyers in the police station . While the first applicant had consulted his police - appointed lawyer before having made a statement , the second applicant would appear to have spoken with his after having made a statement . After having consulted the lawyers of their own choice at the interrogation before the investigating judge the first , second , third and seventh applicants said they would not answer any questions or present their defence .

On DATE ORG indicted CARDINAL police officers for torturing and ill - treating the father of the first and second applicants on the occasion of their arrest . On DATE , after a remittal , the defendants were acquitted , which judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal , which had been lodged against these decisions on DATE by the first applicant on behalf of his father , who had passed away in the meantime .

In a statement made to his lawyer on DATE the sixth applicant wrote that the medical report issued in DATE contained a recommendation that he should have another dermatological check - up in DATE , which check - up had not taken place , and that , contrary to what was in the report , he had not had any physiotherapy . He also maintained that he could not communicate with the doctor as the doctor could not speak LANGUAGE or NORP . The sixth applicant claimed that his health situation was far from regular and referred to the shoulder pain , high blood pressure , high cholesterol , permanent headache , sleeplessness , dizziness and total exhaustion . He stated that “ numerous appeals ” made by him personally , his lawyer and ORG personnel , seeking a competent medical examination , had remained unanswered . No details with regard to these appeals have been provided in the case file . There is also no evidence that this statement of the sixth applicant has ever been submitted to anyone except his lawyer .

The sixth applicant also submitted a letter addressed to the President of ORG , apparently written by a Consular Officer of ORG in GPE on DATE . The letter stated that the sixth applicant , during regular visits of a representative of ORG , consistently complained about his medical problems , in particular about the growth of a mole on his face and a shoulder pain . It further transpires from the letter that the sixth applicant had been visited by a dermatologist on DATE , but that it was impossible to take a sample of the mole as no appropriate equipment was available in the prison . The letter went on to say that the sixth applicant had been prescribed treatment for the shoulder pain , but that he had stopped taking it as it made him nauseous . The submitted copy of the letter bears no logo of ORG , no signature of an authorised person , and no stamp indicating that it has ever been submitted to ORG .


CASE OF SANDU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the time of the events the applicant was the manager of a ORG - owned veterinary clinic .

According to the official version of events , on DATE a person ( C. ) came to the applicant ’s office at TIME and expressed his wish to have his dog vaccinated and to obtain a document required for travelling abroad with that dog . The applicant then told him that the process could last DATE , but could be sped up . In exchange for CARDINAL NORP lei ( ORG , CARDINAL ( ORG ) at the time ) , the applicant said that he would issue C. with the relevant document without seeing the dog , knowing that it had not been vaccinated .

NORP Immediately after that , C. went to Rîşcani police station in PERSON and asked for help in catching the applicant in the act of receiving the bribe . In his report to the police made at that time , PERSON noted that he had asked for vaccination documents for his DATE dog called “ GPE ” , which was a variety of terrier .

NORP In response to C. ’s report , a number of procedural acts were carried out that same morning :

( i ) ORG , an officer at Rîşcani police station , issued an order to initiate a criminal investigation , which was countersigned by a prosecutor on DATE at TIME ;

( ii ) a prosecutor from the PERSON prosecutor ’s office issued an order giving subject - matter jurisdiction over the investigation of the case to NORP police station , while noting that jurisdiction to handle such cases normally lay with FAC . ;

( iii ) ORG issued an order giving territorial jurisdiction to Rîşcani police station ;

( iv ) ORG issued a search warrant for the applicant ’s office ( countersigned by ORG investigating judge on DATE ) ;

( v ) ORG issued a second order to trace the source of the money paid as a bribe ;

( vi ) a third order was issued by ORG , pursuant to which the money to be given as a bribe was to be marked with a special substance ; and

( vii ) MDL CARDINAL in CARDINAL banknotes of MDL CARDINAL each was marked by ORG in the presence of C. and a specialist at TIME and a record of this was drawn up .

At TIME on DATE C. entered the applicant ’s office and told him that he only had MDL CARDINAL . The applicant took the money , stamped and made the relevant notes in the dog ’s passport . At TIME officers from Rîşcani police station entered the applicant ’s office and discovered MDL CARDINAL in his pocket . The money was subsequently confirmed as bearing the specific mark made earlier for the purpose of proving the act of bribe taking .

On DATE the applicant was released against an undertaking not to leave the city .

NORP In the record of an interrogation made on DATE , it is recorded that the applicant declared that there were individuals who , for a long time , had wanted to frame him due to his past conflicts with them . He also mentioned a criminal complaint concerning an assassination attempt that took place on DATE which had not been examined and which meant , in the applicant ’s opinion , that someone had a motive for making a false accusation against him .

On DATE ORG transferred the case to ORG in PERSON for examination , as the latter court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked the court to exclude all the evidence obtained as a result of the procedural acts of DATE , on the basis that it had been obtained in violation of territorial and subject - matter jurisdiction . The court twice postponed the hearing in order for the prosecution to submit evidence in this respect .

On DATE the prosecution submitted ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) giving territorial jurisdiction to Rîşcani police station . The order had not been included in the file before that date . The applicant ’s lawyer objected to the inclusion of that document in the file , stating that its existence had never previously been mentioned and that he had serious reasons for considering that it was backdated . According to the prosecution , the order had been mistakenly annexed to another file and had been discovered shortly before submitting it to the court . According to the Government , the applicant ’s lawyer did not raise an objection during the hearing of DATE , but only did so in his final submissions to the court at a hearing on DATE .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of soliciting and accepting a bribe . The court referred to such evidence as C. ’s initial police report and subsequent statements , those of the officers at Rîşcani police station , and to the findings of the search at the applicant ’s office on DATE , during which MDL CARDINAL had been found in his pocket . The applicant was ordered to pay a criminal fine of MDL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and was prohibited from working as a veterinary surgeon for DATE .

In respect of the allegation made by the applicant and his lawyer that the entire event had been the result of police entrapment , the court found as follows :

“ The submission that the charges of bribe taking brought against [ the applicant ] were based on police entrapment is unsubstantiated , because [ C. ] declared under oath both during the criminal investigation and before the court that [ the applicant ] had solicited money from him in order to speed up his dog ’s vaccination . Moreover , upon his arrest the accused took the money out of his pocket , which proves his intentional actions and [ shows that it was ] not entrapment ” .

The applicant appealed . He noted the various procedural shortcomings concerning the timing of the issuance of the orders on DATE and claimed that the investigative actions had taken place before the initiation of the investigation itself . He further submitted that it was strange that C. had gone to Rîşcani police station and not to the police station situated in the LOC district , which had territorial jurisdiction to deal with the alleged offence . Nor had he gone to the police station in the district where he lived . Furthermore , according to the documents in the file , the police had given money to C. for him to bribe the applicant with , yet of the MDL CARDINAL given to C. only MDL CARDINAL had been passed on to the applicant , the remainder having disappeared . The applicant submitted that C. had been “ artificially involved in the operation of handing money to me , which constitutes incitement to bribe taking ” .

The applicant further claimed that ORG had never had a dog and had therefore had no need to have a dog vaccinated for travel abroad . He referred to the inconsistency between C. ’s description of his dog ( stating initially that it was a type of terrier , but later that it was a type of pitbull , while the pet passport submitted to the court was for an LANGUAGE cocker spaniel dog , which , in addition , belonged to another person , PERSON ) . Moreover , according to the documents submitted to the court the dog had been born on DATE and thus could not have been DATE on DATE , as stated by C. Furthermore , C. had refused to say whom he had wanted to visit abroad , even though he had previously stated that he had intended to visit friends , taking his dog with him .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment . In respect of the applicant ’s argument of entrapment , the court repeated the reasoning of the lower court word for word .

The applicant appealed on points of law , essentially repeating his arguments made before the lower courts .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower NORP judgments . In respect of the applicant ’s argument of entrapment , the court repeated the reasoning of the lower courts word for word .


CASE OF KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIĆ v. MONTENEGRO

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The first applicant was founded in DATE and has its seat in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant is the first applicant ’s founder , executive director , and the owner of PERCENT of its shares . PERCENT is owned by the second applicant ’s wife and son .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the first applicant concluded CARDINAL contracts with ORG ( PERSON fond za građevinsko zemljište , poslovni prostor i puteve PERSON ) . Under the first contract the first applicant obtained the right to use ( pravo korišćenja ) CARDINAL plots of development land ( građevinsko zemljište ) with a total surface of QUANTITY , on which it planned to build a shopping centre and an office building . The second contract concerned the communal charges for the necessary infrastructure on the land at issue ( naknada za uređenje građevinskog zemljišta ) . On an unspecified date thereafter the CARDINAL plots of land were joined into CARDINAL , marked as no . CARDINAL . Pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the first applicant became the owner of the land at issue on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued a decision by which it divided the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL into CARDINAL , CARDINAL of which kept the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL and had QUANTITY , and another one which was registered as no . ORG and which had QUANTITY .

On DATE the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was further split into CARDINAL , the smaller part of QUANTITY becoming a cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL . The bigger part kept the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL and measured QUANTITY .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant ’s plan for the shopping centre and the office building was registered in DATE ( NORP urbanistički plan , “ DUP ” ) .

In DATE the DUP for the relevant area was changed , one of the changes being that the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and an adjacent plot of land of QUANTITY , owned by the Municipality , were joined into CARDINAL urban plot ( urbanistička parcela ) .

On DATE the President of the GPE decided to change the relevant DUP further , which decision entered into force on DATE . Construction in the area was prohibited thereby for DATE except in case of those investors who had already obtained a building permit prior to this decision .

On DATE another decision was issued , providing that the DUP would be changed within DATE and construction was further prohibited until the adoption of a new DUP but DATE at most . The ban did not apply to the investors who had already obtained a building permit . This decision entered into force on DATE .

On DATE a new decision to change the DUP was issued , revoking the previous CARDINAL decisions . As regards its contents it corresponded to the decision of DATE . It entered into force on DATE .

On DATE a new DUP was issued ; it entered into force on DATE . Thereby the adjacent plot of land that had previously been added to plot no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was apparently split into CARDINAL : CARDINAL parts became parts of CARDINAL newly - formed urban plots of land and the third part remained attached to the applicant ’s land and would appear to be part of a traffic route ( saobraćajnica ) . It would also appear that in this urban plot of land the DUP planned the construction of CARDINAL buildings instead of the shopping centre planned by the first applicant .

On DATE a new decision to change the DUP was issued .

On DATE the DUP was changed again , apparently providing for the construction of buildings similar to those initially planned to be built there by the applicants .

Following the changes of the DUP in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the first applicant contacted ORG ( Direkcija za imovinu ; “ the ORG ” ) in LOC . It sought to “ complete ” the urban plot , that is to buy the adjacent cadastral plot of land which had been added to its own land , thus forming CARDINAL urban plot of land ; having received no reply it renewed its request on CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE issued ORG , which stated that the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was smaller than the relevant urban plot and that it needed to be “ completed ” ( potrebno je izvršiti njeno dokompletiranje ) .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) granted the first applicant a location for the construction of business LOC on plot no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , in accordance with the DATE DUP . The decision specified that LAW DATE were a constituent part of this decision .

On DATE the first applicant appealed , having received no reply from the FAC . DATE the ORG informed the first applicant that no completion of plots could be done given that the revision of the DUP was ongoing at the time , which meant “ urbanistic reconsideration of the area ” at issue .

By DATE there had been CARDINAL remittals , either by the GPE ’s Chief Administrator ( as the competent second - instance body ) or ORG .

In the course of these proceedings , on DATE the ORG enquired at ORG if the same urban plot of land , as it had existed at the time when the first applicant had first filed a request for completion , could be formed again . On DATE ORG replied that the size of the said plot of land had been changed in the meantime and that there was no basis for re - forming the urban plot as it once had been .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request again . On DATE the Chief Administrator upheld this decision , considering that due to the changes of the planning documents the completion of the said plot of land could not be done and that therefore the first applicant ’s request had been correctly dismissed . On DATE the first applicant instituted an administrative dispute before ORG , which would appear to be still pending .

On DATE the first applicant requested ORG ( PERSON izgradnju i ORG ; “ the Agency ” ) , a legal successor of ORG , to calculate the final communal charges for the urban plot no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG replied that the calculation could not be made due to the construction ban .

On DATE and DATE the first applicant urged the ORG to make the necessary calculation , submitting that the ban applied only to construction and not to the calculation of charges .

On DATE the first applicant made its own assessment of the communal charges in the amount of ORG euros ( ORG ) and made the payment . The payment was returned DATE as it had been made “ without cause ” ( uplaćen bez osnova ) .

In the course of the proceedings the applicant repeated its request to the ORG on several occasions , including DATE , submitting that the construction ban as the basis for refusal was unlawful and/or the ban was not in force at the relevant time .

By DATE the applicant ’s request had been refused by the ORG CARDINAL times on the grounds that construction was banned pursuant to either the decision to change the DUP of DATE or the decision of DATE . The ORG also held that the calculation could not be done as the first applicant had no building permit .

On DATE the second - instance body rejected the first applicant ’s appeal on the grounds that this was not a matter for administrative proceedings . The first applicant initiated an administrative dispute before ORG in this regard but in view of the opinion of the second - instance body it withdrew that claim , and instead pursued the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the first applicant instituted proceedings before ORG ( GPE sud ) in GPE against the ORG for refusing to calculate the communal charges .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered the ORG to calculate the charges . The court considered in particular that the first decision to change the DUP , which prohibited construction , had entered into force on DATE and expired on DATE , while the next decision had entered into force on DATE . Therefore , there had been no construction ban before DATE or CARDINAL and DATE , when the first applicant requested the communal charges to be calculated and when the ORG was bound to calculate them . The court also noted that the ORG ’s reasoning for refusing the first applicant ’s request , notably that “ the calculation [ could ] not be done as the first applicant had no building permit ” was illogical , since the calculation of charges was a pre - condition for getting a building permit .

ORG and ORG upheld the previous decision on DATE and DATE respectively . ORG held , inter alia , that the first applicant had been granted the location for construction by the competent Ministry before it was decided that the DUP would be changed and that a decision to change the DUP could not affect the investors who had already been granted a location .

On DATE the ORG calculated the charges . It provided for a new contract to be concluded with the first applicant , which specified that pursuant to the DATE contract the applicant had already paid a certain amount and that the remaining amount to be paid was ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE , upon the first applicant ’s request , ORG issued an enforcement order , which provided that the ORG would calculate the charges within DATE or it would face a penalty of LAW , and would have to calculate the charges within DATE .

On DATE the first applicant received the above calculation from the ORG . On DATE it requested that the contract specify in accordance with which DUP the construction would be undertaken .

On DATE the ORG replied that the first applicant ’s request was outside the ORG ’s competence and that the first applicant should address bodies in charge of urban planning in that respect . On DATE the Agency notified ORG that it had complied with its judgment and the enforcement order .

On DATE the first applicant informed ORG that it did not consider the relevant judgment enforced as it had “ serious objections ” to the documents submitted by the ORG due to which it had not signed them .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the first applicant had no objections in respect of the calculation itself , and noted that no statute provided for an obligation or a possibility for the first applicant to sign the calculation .

On DATE the first applicant requested a building permit for the shopping centre from the Ministry .

On DATE the first applicant notified the Ministry that the ORG was refusing to calculate the charges and asked the ORG to urge that the ORG do so . On DATE the Ministry responded that it had no competence as regards matters relating to the calculation of the charges .

On DATE the first applicant informed the Ministry that it had done the calculation itself and had made the payment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the Ministry dismissed the first applicant ’s request on the grounds that it had not paid the communal charges or completed the urban plot pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the first applicant instituted an administrative dispute before ORG . It submitted , inter alia , that the requirement to buy an adjacent plot of land had been introduced in addition and was unnecessary given that the shopping centre was planned entirely on the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . It also maintained that the refusal to calculate the charges was groundless as the ban related to construction only and not to the calculation of the charges , and that it was a deliberate obstruction .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s claim on the grounds that there was no contract between the first applicant and the ORG concerning the communal charges , that the first applicant had failed to submit all the evidence required by the relevant statutory provision in order to obtain a building permit , and it had failed to obtain an adjacent plot of land as required by LAW . The court did not deal with the first applicant ’s explicit submission that the said requirements were unlawful and/or unnecessary .

On an unspecified date thereafter the first applicant lodged a request for judicial review before ORG , maintaining that there was a contract between itself and the Agency concluded in DATE . It also submitted that the courts had blamed the first applicant for not paying the charges and completing the plot , even though it had done everything it could to comply with these requests , and had actually complained about the unlawfulness of the relevant State bodies’ refusal to cooperate in these matters .

On DATE ORG upheld the previous decision , considering that the first applicant had indeed failed to submit proof that it had paid the communal charges and completed the urban plot as requested .

On DATE , following the change of the DUP in DATE , the first applicant requested a building permit for “ central activities building ” ( za izgradnju objekta centralnih djelatnosti ) . On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , the proceedings were still pending .

DATE and DATE the first applicant filed CARDINAL motions with ORG for the assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the decisions to change the DUP issued on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings ( obustavlja se postupak ) upon the first motion as the impugned decision of DATE was no longer in force .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG rejected the other CARDINAL motions .

The DUP in the area at issue was subject to changes in DATE ( the changes in DATE were done pursuant to the first applicant ’s request to that effect ) , DATE ( entered into force in DATE ) , DATE ( entered into force in DATE ) , DATE , DATE and DATE . The purpose of the land also changed over time , from “ sports and recreation ” to “ central activities ” ( centralne djelatnosti ) .

DATE and DATE the first applicant obtained a number of permits related to the planned construction of the shopping centre ( electro - energetic , water supply , sanitation , geo - mechanic , urbanistic , as well as those related to fire safety , environmental protection , workplace safety , traffic , etc . ) .

DATE there were CARDINAL other requests relating to the land in respect of which the DUP was changed ( CARDINAL of which were also for completion of relevant plots of land ) . In all CARDINAL cases the claimants were informed that their requests could not be met in view of the changes which the DUP was undergoing .

On DATE the Ministry sent a letter to the mayors of all GPE . The letter stated , in substance , that “ certain local government units ” interpreted section CARDINAL of ORG o planiranju i uređenju prostora ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which provided for a possibility of a construction ban where appropriate , in a way that was incompatible with its contents , essence and meaning . The Ministry further explained that a decision on ‘ a construction ban’ related exclusively to a ban on issuing a decision granting a location , as a document on the basis of which a building permit was issued , and that in a case where the decision on location had been issued prior to the construction ban , the competent body had a duty to issue a building permit to an investor , provided that the conditions provided in section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o izgradnji objekata ) were fulfilled , regardless of whether the construction ban in the relevant area was in force .

DATE and DATE the first applicant was granted a location and was issued urban planning conditions for the construction of a warehouse in another part of GPE . It also obtained other relevant consents ( concerning water supply , electricity , fire protection , traffic , ecology , sanitation , etc . ) and the ORG ’s urbanistic consent to technical documentation . On DATE it concluded a contract with the Agency concerning the charges , and on DATE it obtained a building permit for that location . By DATE it had built the warehouse and obtained a permit to use it ( upotrebna dozvola ) .

On DATE , following the first applicant ’s proposal to that effect , a meeting was held between the representatives of the first applicant and the ORG . The ORG undertook to study the first applicant ’s submissions in relation to the urban plot of land no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , including the one that it had not been allowed to honour all the obligations . It would appear , however , that the first applicant never received any response from the ORG .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC no . CARDINAL in the GPE region .

In DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of several counts of robbery and a murder . He claimed that he had been beaten by the police .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty as charged . It sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and considered that the prison terms for the other crimes were absorbed by the life sentence . The court dismissed the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE ORG reviewed the applicant ’s case under an extraordinary procedure and commuted his sentence to DATE imprisonment . It reasoned that life imprisonment had not been listed as a possible penalty in LAW on DATE when the murder for which the applicant had been sentenced had been committed .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL , which had a section for life prisoners , to serve his sentence . That prison is located QUANTITY from GPE , where the applicant had been living before his detention and where his mother lived . The train journey from GPE to PERSON takes from TIME .

On numerous occasions the applicant and his mother , PERSON , who acted on his behalf as his representative under a power of attorney , asked ORG of GPE for ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to transfer the applicant to a prison closer to his home to make it easier for her to visit him . They drew attention , in particular , to the long travel time from GPE to GPE by public transport , which was very burdensome for PERSON given her advanced age ( born in DATE ) and poor health ( she had been officially certified “ second - degree ” ( medium ) disabled ) .

On DATE and DATE ORG replied to the applicant ’s mother that her request had been rejected , since “ in accordance with the legislation in force , convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison ” .

On DATE PERSON arrived at FAC to visit the applicant . During the visit she fainted and was provided with medical assistance for low blood pressure . Her meeting with the applicant was not resumed once she had recovered , on the recommendation of a medical professional .

On many subsequent occasions PERSON continued to contact various authorities on her own and the applicant ’s behalf , requesting his transfer to a prison closer to his home to enable her to visit him . She always enclosed with her requests the medical certificate confirming her disability and her doctor ’s advice not to travel outside the GPE region .

All PERSON requests were rejected . On numerous occasions ( on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE ) ORG repeated its previous reasoning , referring to the legal requirement that prisoners must serve their entire prison term in the same establishment .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s mother that her request could not be granted because no places were available for life prisoners in establishments closer to GPE .

On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant ’s mother again , informing her that the applicant was supposed to serve his entire sentence in the same prison and that , in any event , there were no places available in prisons closer to his home .

On DATE ORG further notified the applicant that , in accordance with unspecified regulations , persons convicted of aggravated murder were usually detained in prisons located outside the region in which the crime had been committed .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG reiterated , in reply to the repeated requests of the applicant ’s mother for his transfer , that “ under the legislation in force , convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison ” .

On DATE , following a review of the applicant ’s sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG regional commission on prisoner distribution , allocation and transfers examined his case . It decided that he would be held in a maximum - security prison , in ordinary accommodation . Pursuant to that decision , on DATE he was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL ( a maximum - security prison ) located in the GPE region , QUANTITY from GPE . The train journey from GPE to GPE takes from CARDINAL to TIME .

On an unspecified date PERSON ORG complained to ORG that that transfer was unfair , as FAC was even further away from the applicant ’s home address .

On DATE the administrative commission of PERSON examined the applicant ’s request that the level of security of his prison regime be reduced from high to medium security . It was noted that , under the LAW on ORG , a prisoner could be transferred from a high to a medium - security prison if he had already served CARDINAL of his sentence and if he had been manifesting good behaviour as an indication of his willingness to improve . However , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times and was not therefore eligible for such a transfer . Accordingly , his request was rejected . It remained open for him to challenge that decision before the regional commission of ORG .

On DATE ORG regional commission on prisoner distribution , allocation and transfers rejected the applicant ’s request for transfer to a prison in the GPE region . As noted in TIME of its meeting , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times .

On DATE ORG further informed PERSON that its appeal board had rejected the applicant ’s request for transfer to a medium - security prison in the GPE region , and that decision would be reviewed only if his conduct improved .

The applicant ’s mother then requested the applicant ’s transfer to a prison in the GPE or GPE region ( neighbouring the GPE region ) .

On DATE the ORG appeal board rejected her request . As noted in its meeting report , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times and had received no incentives .

The applicant suffers from ingrowing eyelashes of the left eye , which have to be removed periodically . His mother made a general allegation , without providing any factual details , that he had been hit in his left eye following his arrival at FAC . No further information is available as to the duration and origin of the above - mentioned condition .

As regards the medical treatment for the ingrowing eyelashes , the applicant ’s submissions to the ORG were limited to his mother ’s general statement , which she had made on CARDINAL occasions , in DATE and DATE , that the responsibility for the condition lay with the authorities and that , although the ingrowing eyelashes were regularly removed , the applicant felt pain and discomfort in his left eye .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to the prosecutor ’s office that the applicant ’s eye problem was connected to his alleged beating by prison guards following his arrival at the prison in DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG responded that there was no basis for launching a criminal inquiry into that complaint . In particular , the applicant had not requested a medical examination or assistance on account of any injuries inflicted on him . Furthermore , according to the testimony of other prisoners who had arrived at the prison together with the applicant , they had not experienced or witnessed any beatings . The prosecutor also noted that the applicant ’s condition was under constant medical supervision . In particular , he had his ingrowing eyelashes removed by a qualified ophthalmologist on a regular basis . No other health - related complaints had been recorded .

According to extracts from the applicant ’s medical file provided by the ORG , the applicant had had his ingrowing eyelashes removed on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as on DATE and DATE . Furthermore , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE he had refused medical examinations and treatment .

The applicant and his mother , acting on his behalf , complained to the prosecution authorities and ORG about the routine monitoring of his correspondence by the prison administration .

NORP The prosecutor ’s response was that the applicant ’s correspondence was subject to monitoring under the legislation in force ; however , there had been no instances of withholding letters or seizing objects which the prisoners were allowed to keep .

On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant ’s mother , in reply to her complaint regarding , in particular , the interference with his correspondence , that on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the prison administration had “ withheld some letters written by [ the applicant ] , because their content did not comply with the requirements of ORG of Prisoners’ Correspondence ” .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s mother that no correspondence had been withheld from the applicant and that since DATE he had sent CARDINAL letters and had received CARDINAL recommended letters and QUANTITY standard letters . There had been no complaints from the applicant himself regarding his correspondence .

On DATE the applicant made a written statement that he had no complaints against the prison administration .

On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant ’s mother informing her that the applicant had sent CARDINAL letters , had received CARDINAL letters , and that he had had CARDINAL paid telephone conversations .

On DATE the applicant made a written statement that he had no complaints concerning the work of the prison official in charge of the monitoring of ORG correspondence .

On DATE the applicant asked the prison administration to allow him to make a telephone call on DATE instead of a short - term private meeting to which he was entitled . According to a hand - written note on the request , apparently added by a prison official , the applicant ’s last private meeting had been on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked the prison administration to allow him to make a telephone call on DATE . As noted on the request , he had last made a telephone call on CARDINAL DATE .

According to the official records , during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the PERSON prison administration dispatched CARDINAL letters from the applicant .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a certain PERSON ( hereinafter “ the first debtor ” ) and PERSON ( hereinafter “ the second debtor ” ) were each sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for attempted murder of the applicant in DATE .

On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a claim for damages with ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG .

On DATE the aforementioned court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtors to pay him , jointly , MONEY ( ORG ) plus statutory interest on account of the non - pecuniary damage suffered .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG in GPE a request for enforcement of the judgment dated DATE . Following an order , the applicant amended his request for enforcement on DATE . The enforcement order itself was then adopted on DATE .

On DATE the debtors objected to the enforcement order , but their objections were rejected .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the enforcement court ordered the debtors to disclose their immovable property . It appeared that no immovable assets had been registered in the ORG names .

On DATE the enforcement court requested information from ORG as to whether the debtors owned any motor vehicles . The record showed that the first debtor had had CARDINAL motor vehicles . However , on DATE , when a bailiff came to make an inventory , the vehicles had already been sold to a third person .

On DATE the enforcement court ordered an inventory of the NORP movable assets .

On DATE and DATE new inventories of the debtor ’s moveable assets were carried out . DATE and DATE the enforcement court dealt with the objections to the inventories raised by the debtors and third parties .

On DATE a decision to auction the NORP specified movable assets was issued , and the applicant was ordered to deposit ORG CARDINAL for the auction costs . The sale was scheduled for DATE . However , on DATE the second debtor informed the enforcement court that he had donated his movables to a charity . On DATE a new inventory of his moveable assets was carried out .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the bailiff .

On an unspecified date in DATE the second debtor offered to pay the applicant LAW , but the applicant rejected this offer . The second debtor subsequently made a new offer in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , but this offer was also rejected by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant informed the enforcement court that the second debtor had paid him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that he considered the enforcement proceedings in respect of this debtor as final .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second debtor were formally terminated .

As regards the first debtor , the enforcement proceedings continued .

In DATE the first debtor ’s specified movable assets were estimated at ORG and the enforcement court invited the applicant to take possession of them on DATE . The applicant failed to do so . He was again invited to take possession of the assets in DATE and , once more , in DATE . However , the applicant again declined to do so on both occasions .

On DATE the first debtor ’s father informed the enforcement court that he would pay his son ’s debt .

In DATE the applicant was once again invited to take possession of the movable assets belonging to the first debtor . This time , the applicant explicitly rejected the court ’s offer stating that he did not need those “ worthless ” assets and that they could have instead been given to a charity .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant notified the enforcement court that he had entered into an agreement with the first debtor and that the first debtor would honor the judgement debt in instalments . However , it appears from the applicant ’s later submissions to this ORG that the first debtor had in fact not paid him anything since he did not have any “ valuable assets ” .

DATE the applicant availed himself of CARDINAL domestic remedies concerning the length of proceedings , in particular CARDINAL requests for review of the duration of the proceedings , in order to have them expedited ( kontrolni zahtjev ) and CARDINAL actions for fair redress , aimed at obtaining compensation for the excessive duration of the proceedings ( tužba za pravično zadovoljenje ) . ORG Instance rejected the applicant ’s requests for review on DATE and DATE , respectively . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to ORG , which upheld ORG decisions . ORG in GPE also ruled against the applicant ’s actions for fair redress on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Actio popularis);Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens

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

In the applicant ’s submission , she is a devout NORP and she wears the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith , culture and personal convictions . According to her explanation , the burqa is a full - body covering including a mesh over the face , and the niqab is a full - face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes . The applicant emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put pressure on her to dress in this manner .

NORP The applicant added that she wore the niqab in public and in private , but not systematically : she might not wear it , for example , when she visited the doctor , when meeting friends in a public place , or when she wanted to socialise in public . She was thus content not to wear the niqab in public places at all times but wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so , depending in particular on her spiritual feelings . There were certain times ( for example , during religious events such as Ramadan ) when she believed that she ought to wear it in public in order to express her religious , personal and cultural faith . Her aim was not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself .

The applicant did not claim that she should be able to keep the niqab on when undergoing a security check , at the bank or in airports , and she agreed to show her face when requested to do so for necessary identity checks .

Since DATE , the date of entry into force of Law no . DATE of DATE throughout GPE , it has been prohibited for anyone to conceal their face in public places .


CASE OF HANZELKOVI v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC [Extracts]

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .

The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant . During her pregnancy she had regular check - ups with a doctor and attended ante - natal classes at ORG . Prior to giving birth she had expressed , among other things , her wish to leave the maternity ward as soon as possible provided that there were no complications .

On DATE the first applicant contacted a pediatrician , PERSON , who agreed to take charge of her future child and to come and see them both at their home as soon as they were discharged from the maternity ward . She informed the first applicant that she would , however , be away DATE . The applicant then told her that she intended to leave the hospital “ earlier ” , without enlarging on that statement . S. subsequently stated that it had not been her understanding that the applicant wanted to leave the hospital TIME after the birth .

The second applicant was born on DATE at ORG . It was a natural and spontaneous delivery with no complications . The applicants were found to have no health problems , the Apgar score for newborns ( recording the pulse rate , respiration , complexion , muscular activity and reflex irritability ) was the highest possible , according to the medical team ’s assessment . In these circumstances , the first applicant decided to leave the hospital DATE , which she did at TIME despite meeting opposition from the medical team .

According to a statement issued by the hospital on DATE following extensive media coverage of the case , the hospital staff had suggested that the applicants remain at the hospital for TIME and had warned the first applicant of the possible risks to the child ’s health , but the first applicant had indicated that a pediatrician would be taking charge of the child . After the applicants had left , the hospital staff informed the police , which was standard practice in situations where a patient left hospital prematurely without the doctor ’s consent and this could have repercussions on his or her health . The social welfare authority was not informed until after the pediatrician PERSON had contacted the hospital ( see below ) . The hospital found it regrettable that the first applicant had not expressed her wish to leave the hospital TIME after the birth during the ante - natal classes . Had she done so , the staff would have recommended that she obtain a personal care plan for the newborn baby and secure written agreement from the pediatrician ( who would thus have had proper advance notice ) , whereupon her decision would have been accepted . The first applicant had accepted , moreover , that the events in question might have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the care arrangements for her newborn baby .

According to the explanations given by the pediatrician PERSON , on DATE at TIME she had been informed by the nurse from her surgery , who had received a call from the first applicant , that the latter had given birth that very TIME and returned home . As it was an unusual situation , the pediatrician , who had been preparing to leave for DATE and could not visit the applicants until TIME , informed the staff at ORG accordingly . NORP , the hospital doctor , decided to contact the social welfare authority , namely , the ORG municipal office . In the meantime PERSON had informed the first applicant by telephone that she would be able to see her and her child until TIME , which the applicant had accepted . Shortly afterwards the pediatrician was contacted by a social worker . She told her about the situation and gave her the first applicant ’s telephone number .

According to the note sent by ORG to ORG ( hereafter “ the social welfare authority ” ) , on DATE the first applicant had left the hospital at TIME on DATE without informing the doctors ; she had not been living at the address she had given the hospital for DATE and the village where she was staying and her telephone number had been provided by the pediatrician contacted by the ORG authority . The social worker had succeeded in contacting the child ’s father on that number . Although he had been informed that an interim measure under Article PERSON of LAW might be applied , he had stated that the applicants would not return to the hospital and had refused to provide the family ’s exact address .

At the request of the social welfare authority , Dr NORP drew up a note observing that “ given the short period of time since the birth , the health and potentially the actual life of the child [ would ] be at risk if he [ were ] deprived of hospital care ” .

Also on CARDINAL DATE the social welfare authority requested ORG to apply an interim measure pursuant to Article PERSON of LAW , with a view to entrusting the second applicant to the care of the gynaecology - obstetrics department of ORG . The above - mentioned notes drawn up by ORG and Dr D. were annexed to the request .

On DATE the court granted the request , reiterating the terms of the note drawn up by Dr D. The decision stated that any interim measure was served on the parties at the time of execution , which had to be immediate .

At TIME on DATE a court bailiff and a social worker , accompanied by police officers , went to the applicants’ house . Although they explained to the child ’s father that the first applicant could go to the hospital with the second applicant , he refused to take them to there of his own free will . An emergency medical team was therefore summoned . After examining the newborn baby , the doctor present observed that he had no health problems but agreed with the others that for the purposes of implementing the interim measure the mother and child would be taken back to the hospital in the ambulance . The father , police officers , social worker and court bailiff followed the ambulance . Once at the hospital , the second applicant was examined again and found not to have any health problems .

The applicants were made to remain at the hospital for DATE and allege that no medical act was carried out during that time . According to the hospital report , the first applicant had refused neonatal screening and vaccination of the second applicant . At the express request of the first applicant , who accordingly signed the form refusing further medical treatment ( negativní revers ) , the applicants were discharged from the hospital on DATE , TIME after the birth .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . His parents , ORG and GPE , separated in DATE and divorced in DATE , mainly because of GPE ’s abusive behaviour towards his wife and their son . The applicant remained with his mother . On DATE ORG called the hotline of ORG ( ORG şi ORG ) to report the domestic abuse she and the applicant had been suffering at the hands of FAC Since then , the case has been monitored by the ORG . On DATE ORG certified that since DATE it had included the applicant in a psychological counselling programme .

ORG issued the following statement concerning the monitoring of the applicant ’s case ( on DATE for the purpose of court proceedings ) :

“ Mrs [ ORG ] kept contact with our institution , the case being monitored by ORG ( legal counselling concerning eviction from home ... ) as well as by the ORG concerning emergency relocation and ORG . ”

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ORG lodged complaints with ORG about the alleged violence inflicted by her husband on the applicant . No action was taken on these complaints . On DATE ORG lodged a new complaint with the police concerning the alleged abuse . The police heard evidence from witnesses on behalf of the applicant and obtained information about the applicant ’s situation from the centre where he and his mother had been relocated . Based on the evidence gathered , the police sent the file to the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG ( “ the prosecutor ” ) .

On DATE the prosecutor instituted a criminal investigation against GPE It heard evidence from ORG , GPE and CARDINAL witnesses and examined the expert reports concerning the applicant ’s and GPE ’s psychological evaluations . It concluded that the applicant had suffered trauma during his early childhood because of his father who had done everything he could to torment him and to make him suffer .

On DATE the prosecutor indicted GPE for abusive behaviour towards his son .

The GPE ORG heard evidence from a psychologist who had observed the applicant during therapy , from GPE and other witnesses , as well as from GPE , the last mentioned denying having hurt his son . ORG did not request damages on behalf of the applicant . In a decision of CARDINAL June DATE the court acquitted GPE on the grounds that his occasionally inappropriate behaviour towards the applicant had not been severe enough to constitute a crime . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE , but on DATE ORG quashed this latter decision and remitted the case to ORG , as it considered that the lower courts should have heard evidence from the applicant and relied on the psychological reports .

On DATE ORG held a private hearing and interviewed the applicant . He told the judges how GPE used to hit him , lock him in a small room without lights , throw water on him while he was sleeping and call him names . He stated that PERSON had often fought with his mother and that sometimes he had thrown the applicant ’s maternal grandmother and aunt – who were bringing food to the child – out of their apartment . The applicant told the court that he did not want to live with GPE or even meet him on the street . He was persuaded that GPE would want to hurt him . He stated that he wished that GPE would be punished for what he had done to him .

In a decision rendered on DATE ORG convicted PERSON ill - treatment inflicted on a minor and sentenced him to a suspended penalty of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It considered that the evidence in the prosecution file , in particular the psychological reports and the testimony given by a psychologist , confirmed that the child had suffered trauma as a consequence of his father ’s abusive behaviour .

The court also noted that ORG had not requested damages on behalf of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Based on LAW ( “ the ORG ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court , on its own initiative , awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

Upon an appeal on points of law lodged by GPE , on DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG and ordered that court to obtain an expert examination of the applicant by ORG .

On DATE ORG rendered a new decision . Based on the evidence before it , notably the expert evaluations , psychologist ’s testimony , witness statements , as well as the GPE and the applicant ’s statements , ORG considered it established that GPE had physically and verbally abused his child from DATE to DATE . It stated :

“ ORG notes that the acts perpetrated by [ GPE ] can not be considered as isolated and random acts of physical punishment which parents can administer to their minor children , but became more severe and caused childhood attachment troubles . ”

D.D. was convicted of ill - treatment inflicted on a minor . He was given a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment ; in addition , his right to be elected and his parental rights were suspended during the sentence and for DATE .

When sentencing PERSON , the court took into account the undue length of the criminal proceedings and that there had been significant periods of inactivity by the authorities involved , in particular by the investigators and ORG .

No award of damages was made . The court did not give any explanation in its judgment as to why it decided not to award compensation to the applicant .

All parties appealed on points of law . Relying on LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant and the prosecutor complained notably about the fact that ORG had not awarded damages .

ORG examined the parties’ submissions in the light of the evidence before it . It reaffirmed that D.D. had physically and verbally abused his child ; his sentence was recalculated based on the same criteria , including the reduction as a remedy for the length of the trial . The court accordingly increased the sentence to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and suspended it . The additional penalty of restricting GPE ’s right to be elected and his parental rights was maintained .

The court further considered that in so far as both the prosecutor and the applicant had limited their initial appeals to solely the criminal aspects of ORG decision of DATE , ORG had been right in not awarding damages on its own initiative . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ In so far as the prosecutor ’s office and the injured party argued that the [ ORG ] should have examined the award of damages on its own initiative because the injured party was a minor , it is to be observed from the content of the decision under review that both the prosecutor ’s office and the injured party had expressly limited their appeals to the criminal aspects of the case .

In this situation , the [ ORG ] was right in limiting its examination strictly to the issues brought before it . ”

ORG rendered its final decision on DATE and rectified the text of the operative part on CARDINAL DATE .


CASE OF HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

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

At the material time the applicants were members of the main opposition parties or groups in the country : ORG of Azerbaijan ( “ the PFPA ” ) , ORG and PERSON , respectively . The first applicant was a member of ORG . The first and third applicants were candidates in the parliamentary elections of DATE . The first applicant was also a candidate in the parliamentary elections of DATE .

DATE was marked by an increased number of opposition demonstrations in GPE , mainly in GPE . They were held , inter alia , on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . According to the applicants , the relevant authorities were notified about the demonstrations but refused to authorise them . Despite their peaceful character , demonstrations held without authorisation were dispersed by the police .

All CARDINAL applicants participated in a number of opposition demonstrations . In the course of many of them they were arrested and convicted . In particular , on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was arrested and convicted of breaching the rules on the organisation and holding of assemblies and failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer . The third applicant was arrested during the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE and reprimanded for breaching the rules on the organisation and holding of public assemblies .

According to the applicants , they had intended to attend the demonstration scheduled for DATE . In addition , the first applicant was involved in the organisation of that demonstration .

Prior notice of the demonstration of DATE had been given to the relevant authority , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , on DATE . On DATE the ORG refused to allow the demonstration to be held at the place indicated by the organisers , and proposed that it be held at another place on the outskirts of GPE . Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstration in central LOC , and information about it was disseminated via ORG and the press .

The first applicant alleged that TIME on DATE , after he had taken his child to kindergarten , police officers had stopped his car and requested that he follow them to a police station . He did not oppose the police ORG demand and was taken to police station no . CARDINAL of ORG . At an unspecified time the applicant was informed that he was being detained in connection with the upcoming demonstration of DATE . At TIME he learned that he would not be released from detention . The applicant was then questioned . He was asked , inter alia , about his intention to participate in the demonstration of DATE and generally about the politics in the country .

According to the official records , the applicant was arrested for disobeying a lawful order of a police officer . In particular , police officers ORG and ORG stated the following in a report ( raport ) submitted to a superior police officer :

“ ... at TIME on DATE on CARDINALrd Alatava street [ in GPE ] we stopped a [ person ] who was driving by in his car and requested his identity document because he bore a resemblance to a person who was on a wanted list . But he ignored our lawful demand to produce his identity document . We brought [ him ] to the police station . There we found out that [ he ] was [ the applicant ] ... ”

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

The applicant signed the part of the administrative - offence report acknowledging that he had been familiarised with the report , but left without signature the part with a pre - printed text which stated that “ the rights and obligations under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG were explained ” . He made a statement that he had not disobeyed any order given by the police . This statement was included in the report .

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

The applicant was brought before ORG on DATE of his arrest .

According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief . He refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice , but the judge disregarded his request . His representation by that lawyer was ineffective and of a formalistic nature .

The applicant stated before the court that he had been stopped by the police and had been requested to follow them to a police station , that he had complied with that request , and that he was not guilty of disobeying a police officer .

The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers ORG officer ORG testified that he had prepared the administrative - offence report in respect of the applicant . Police officers ORG gave testimonies virtually identical to the above - mentioned report they had submitted to a superior police officer .

According to the record of the hearing , the ORG - funded lawyer stated that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to terminate the administrative proceedings against him .

NORP The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ “ administrative ” detention .

The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest , and arguing that he had been arrested in connection with the demonstration scheduled for DATE . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court ’s decision .

It appears that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer before ORG .

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

The second applicant alleged that at TIME , when he was still in bed , QUANTITY police officers had entered his apartment without an arrest warrant . The applicant ’s father had let the police officers in . The police officers took the applicant to police station no . QUANTITY of ORG . At an unspecified time the applicant was questioned about his political activities .

According to the official records , the applicant was arrested for minor hooliganism and for disobeying a lawful order of a police officer . In particular , police officer PERSON stated the following in a report submitted to a superior police officer :

“ ... at TIME on DATE on the territory of the CARDINALth micro - district of ORG , I noticed a person who was making noise ... But although I invited him to respect the discipline , he continued his cursing and improper behaviour ... Therefore I brought him to police station no . CARDINAL . There we found out that that [ person ] was [ the applicant ] ... ”

On DATE of the arrest , an administrative - offence report was issued by police officer ORG in respect of the applicant . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( minor hooliganism ) and CARDINAL of the ORG .

The applicant refused to sign the report .

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

According to a statement ( ərizə ) allegedly signed by the applicant and submitted to ORG , the applicant had refused legal assistance while in police custody . According to the transcript of the hearing before ORG , the applicant claimed that he had not signed that statement .

According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief and he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice .

According to the transcript of the first - instance court hearing , the applicant refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .

The applicant stated before the court that he had been taken to a police station from his apartment , that it had been his father who had let the police officers in , that at the police station he had been questioned about his political activity , and that he was not guilty of disobeying a police officer or of swearing at the location indicated by the police . According to the transcript of ORG hearing , the applicant orally requested that the chief of police station no . CARDINAL , ORG , be questioned . However , there is no information whether ORG was questioned .

The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer T.R. He testified that the applicant had been swearing without addressing any particular person and had failed to obey his order to stop his illegal behaviour .

The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ “ administrative ” detention .

The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest , and arguing that his arrest had been unlawful , that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair and that his right to respect for home had been violated by the police . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court ’s decision .

It appears that the applicant refused legal assistance at the hearing before ORG .

According to the third applicant , at TIME on DATE he went with his lawyer to ORG . After a conversation with the chief of police , they left . The applicant , who did not clearly explain the purpose of that visit , alleged that when he had been outside the police office and no longer accompanied by his lawyer , police officers had arrested him without explaining the reasons for doing so , and had taken him to police station no . CARDINAL of ORG .

According to the official records , the applicant was arrested for “ minor hooliganism ” . In a report submitted to a superior police officer , police officer GPE stated the following :

“ ... at TIME on DATE on ORG street [ in ORG ] [ we , the police officers , ] noticed a person who was swearing loudly without addressing anyone in particular ... We approached him and ... brought him to police station no . CARDINAL . There we found out that that [ person ] was [ the applicant ] ... ”

Police officers GPE and TIME submitted explanatory reports ( izahat ) to a superior police officer . Those reports were virtually identical to the report submitted by police officer GPE

On DATE of the arrest police officer GPE issued an administrative - offence report in respect of the applicant . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW .

The applicant refused to sign the administrative - offence report .

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

According to a decision dated DATE , police officer GPE decided to invite a lawyer to represent the applicant , without indicating at what stage the lawyer should join the proceedings .

According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice to represent him at the hearing , which began at TIME He asked the judge to postpone the examination of the case for TIME so that his lawyer could arrive at the court . However , the judge decided to adjourn the hearing for TIME and to recommence the hearing at TIME , which was not enough time for the applicant ’s lawyer to arrive .

According to the transcript of the court hearing , the applicant refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer .

The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of breaching public order by swearing at the location indicated by the police , and that he believed that the motive for his arrest had been his participation in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE .

The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers ORG , GPE and TIME They testified that the applicant had been swearing without addressing anyone in particular and that they had therefore taken him to a police station .

The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ “ administrative ” detention .

The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest , and arguing that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court ’s decision .

It appears that the applicant prepared his written appeal with the assistance of a lawyer of his own choice . However , he participated in the hearing before ORG without his lawyer .