Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the material time the applicant was a journalist at a NORP DATE publication .

He was also a civil activist . As was later established by the domestic courts , since DATE the applicant had identified himself as a member of an informal liberal democratic movement , ORG ( “ the Revolutionary Contact Union ” – hereinafter “ the RKO ” ) . Also , in the period from DATE until DATE the applicant was the founder , owner , publisher and editor - in - chief of a DATE newsletter entitled ORG ( “ Radical Politics ” ) . He determined the contents of the newsletter and published his own articles in it , as well as articles by people with similar views and excerpts from official and non - official sources of information and the mass media . He , himself , prepared each issue of the newsletter at his home address by typing it up on his personal computer , and then had it printed out and reproduced in multiple copies . The exact number of copies of each issue is unknown . The applicant then distributed the newsletter in person or through other unidentified individuals by selling it or giving it out for free at various places in GPE . The articles touched , to a great extent , on the events in GPE .

An article headlined “ From the interview given by PERSON to the ORG press agency ” ( “ GPE интервью ORG агенству Кавказ Центр ” ) mentioned the large - scale hostage - taking at FAC in GPE in DATE referring to it as “ the action of PERSON heroic NORP rebels in GPE ” ( “ акция героических чеченских повстанцев ORG в NORP ” ) . It stated , in particular :

“ GPE has clearly demonstrated that it is at war and permanently in danger of being hit by retaliatory blows , because its rulers have perpetrated a despicable attack on a sovereign ORG and are killing innocent civilians there . Even the western community is compelled to admit that PERSON ’s GPE is waging a war aimed at the physical extermination of NORP as an ethnic group . ”

An article entitled “ Insanity [ defence ] of PERSON [ is ] a guarantee of victory for PERSON ” ( “ Невменяемость Буданова – залог победы Басаевa ” ) commented on the case of a high - ranking NORP officer who was standing trial on charges of torture and murder for the strangulation of an DATE NORP woman and , in particular , on the judgment of the first - instance court by which the defendant had been found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity . The article , of which the applicant was one of the authors , stated , in particular :

“ ... The whole of GPE is filled now with the same GPE – maniacs , bloodthirsty sadists , murderers and degenerates in epaulettes . GPE ’s whole occupying army consists of those LOC . ”

It also stated that :

“ ... The fact that a [ someone who posed a ] danger [ to ] society , an insane maniac was in command of a regiment ... sets a new task before the revolutionary - democratic forces of GPE . From now on we should require immediate compulsory psychiatric examination of all commanders of the military and naval forces , service personnel of ORG , the border guard , the police and the ORG , starting from a captain and finishing with the Commander - in - Chief – V.V.Putin . ”

It also appealed :

“ Let CARDINAL of NORP snipers take up their positions in the hills and the city ruins and CARDINAL of aggressors perish from their holy bullets ! No mercy ! Death to the NORP invaders ! ”

An article headlined “ Accomplices to the murderers of the NORP people ” ( “ О соучастниках убийства чеченского народа ” ) , authored by a third person , commented on the hostage - taking at FAC in GPE in DATE and contained the following paragraph :

“ I , as a national of GPE ( CRI ) , who is DATE suffering from the Russian State Terror , can understand the reasons which pushed NORP patriots to this extraordinary act . It had been brought about by the continuing attacks by GPE on ORG and [ the NORP ] people . There are no documents condemning the mass murder of nationals of the ORG , to say nothing of GPE ’s aggression against ORG ... NORP patriots , reduced to a state of despair by GPE ’s Terror , were compelled to commit this guerrilla act in GPE , the capital of GPE . In so doing they pursued their sole goal , namely to alert the international community to the total genocide of the NORP people being cynically committed by the NORP invaders ” .

The same article mentioned the “ national liberation struggle of the NORP people against the colonial expansion of GPE ” .

In an article headlined “ The NORP resistance is alive ! PERSON has visited GPE and GPE expressions such as “ President ORG ” , “ President of the ORG ” , “ Commander - In - Chief of the ORG ” , “ the capital of the ORG , GPE ” were used .

In an article headlined “ In memoriam , PERSON ” ( “ PERSON ” ) the applicant wrote :

“ NORP heroes are leaving ... PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and DATE – PERSON . As if they would be devoured by a scary black noisome abyss . And the name of this abyss is GPE . ”

In the same article the applicant stated :

“ ... PERSON fought against GPE to his last breath , without making compromises with the murderers of his people . His life was an example of how one should fight against GPE . His death has become an example , amongst CARDINAL of such examples , of the immeasurable scoundrelism and perfidy of GPE , the pathological falsity and criminality of GPE as a ORG , as a civilisation , as a subject of history .

PERSON is the brightest page [ in the history ] of the heroic NORP Resistance movement . He was a hero of an entire generation , not only in GPE , but also in GPE . His life and death are a guarantee that damned imperial GPE will be destroyed and the NORP and all other peoples oppressed by it will finally obtain freedom . We will avenge you , PERSON ! ”

In an article entitled “ A new joke by PERSON ( “ GPE шутка GPE ” ) the applicant stated :

“ Lawful convictions issued by the LAW court of the ORG against national traitors are being executed rigorously . ”

In the same issue of the newsletter the applicant reproduced information from the website GPE regarding a police operation by a unit of the regional Department of the ORG aimed at setting free NORP nationals who had been held in slavery by NORP nationals . The applicant headlined that article with the words “ NORP have slaves and dare to squawk something about NORP ” ( “ PERSON держат рабов и еще смеют что-то вякать в адрес чеченцев ” ) .

In the same issue the applicant published an article headlined “ NORP [ believers ] went completely nuts ” ( “ ORG совсем охренели ” ) in which information had been given about some unidentified “ NORP theologians ” who , in a booklet called “ Foundations of the NORP Faith ” had allegedly claimed that “ PERSON [ had been ] crucified not by NORP but by NORP ” .

In an article headlined “ ‘ NORP syndrome’ inside out ” ( “ PERSON синдром навыворот ” ) , the applicant wrote :

“ ... Most importantly , we realised with our hearts and skin that ORG is , indeed , the most precious thing that a man has , the most precious treasure , the only thing worth dying for . And if [ an individual is ] lucky [ , he or she will ] take with [ him or her]self to the other world at least some enemies , as selfless NORP women do when they put on their ‘ shaheed belts’ . The life of a human is in any event brief and fragile and is only worth living if you are free . Otherwise it is better to die at once . As these NORP women die . ”

He went on as follows :

“ ... In supporting GPE at war , demonstrating our solidarity with PERSON , openly supporting PERSON in GPE on DATE of the ‘ Nord - Ost’ [ theatre siege ] , we crossed a line , a certain border , past which all connections to our past and the environment and people among which we had been born and grown up and lived broke down ; we had trustingly considered ourselves to be part of them , until we read on a foreign , enemy website , and saw with our own eyes , all the awful details of the atrocities committed by [ our ] people in a tiny neighbouring mountain country . Hence , the ORG has been crossed , the choice has been made and there is no room to back off – we no longer have any other family than all peoples oppressed by ‘ our’ GPE , than partisans fighting to be freed from its yoke , than famous warlords like PERSON and political parties which claim monetary compensation [ from GPE ] for their occupation and return of the territories GPE has annexed ... ”

“ ... It is the bloody cannibalistic atrocity of this ORG towards a tiny and helpless mountain people that first brought this thought into our conscience : GPE must be destroyed forever , a ORG doing similar things to an entire nation should not exist at all ! ”

An article headlined “ GPE shielded the NORP ” ( “ PERSON заслонила собою NORP ” ) , authored by a third person , stated :

“ ... ORG , PERSON , PERSON and other heroes of the NORP resistance courageously and firmly got in the way of GPE ’s aggression and , in fact , saved not only the independence of GPE but also its very existence , as well as the existence of other GPE in the GPE ... ”

NORP In an article entitled “ No comments ” the applicant stated :

“ ... PERSON ’s cheap propaganda can jabber as long as it wishes that ORG is a bandit and that he is responsible for the ‘ ORG - Ost’ [ theatre siege ] and the recent explosions in ORG . Anyone who shows at least some interest in contemporary GPE knows that it is ORG who is the legitimate President of GPE . And until he is re - elected in accordance with the constitution of the ORG , and not the NORP constitution , any other ‘ presidents of Chechnya’ are out of the question . Lawful elections of the president of the ORG under the constitution of the ORG of DATE will only be possible when the ORG army , headed by Commander - in - Chief Maskhadov , defeats occupying GPE ’s illegal armed groups of ORG , ORG and ORG , and chucks them out of the territory of independent GPE ... ”

In an article headlined “ Retribution-CARDINAL ” ( “ Возмездие-CARDINAL ” ) the applicant stated :

“ ... Retribution for genocide will take place sooner or later . If we live up to it , we will be its witnesses and it would be good to become its punishing sword . Until then we are only capable of organising lamentably small candlelight vigils to commemorate all those killed and tortured in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE from the White ( NORP ) to LOC – by our ORG which has become frenzied because of blood . It is impossible to live with this heavy burden in the soul , as the terrible knowledge of GPE ’s history requires retribution from all those who remain conscious . It is possible that the hands which hold a commemoration candle DATE will hold a gun DATE it is hard to believe that but Lord help us to live in the happy time when this happens . For the time being we do n’t have any other weapons , except for the alarm bell of our words .

... We remember and grieve for all those killed and tortured by ‘ our’ GPE , hated by us . However , a better gift to all NORP being exterminated will be not [ to have ] yet another meeting with candles to commemorate their genocide , but each blow struck – even though they are still weak , for DATE against the criminal ORG which is killing them and depriving us of our freedom , mutilating our souls , striving to turn us into butchers and binding us with blood . ‘ Less words and more GPE – this is the slogan of slogans of DATE ! Particularly given that there is much to be done for the radical anti - imperial opposition in the country ! ”

The article also read :

“ ... let GPE spit blood for DATE ’s and DATE ’s genocide of the NORP people – it serves it right , it deserved it . Let our commemoration candles at the meetings of DATE turn into flaming torches , in whose purgatorial flames this rotten block , lying in the way of humankind , will burn ! ”

In the same article the applicant wrote :

“ ... As to the writing of inscriptions on the walls of buildings , fences and bus stops , one can not overestimate the importance of those acts . From DATE on and until DATE ] we have to strike persistently at CARDINAL point : slaves , become free for at least a moment , do not participate in fake ‘ elections’ ! We need not campaign among the limited circle of revolutionaries , human - rights activists , extremists , and members of radical and marginal social groups DATE they already know everything . Each direct and open appeal to ... the people other than politicised consumers of ... TV cud [ тележвачки ] is an open and powerful blow to the regime and will hasten its end ... ”

In the same article the applicant also issued the following call :

“ ... We have to accumulate , hate and keep record of their crimes – the endless list of all those ‘ sweep ORG , ‘ identity checks’ , ‘ counter - terrorist ORG , gagging laws , unlawful searches and politically motivated criminal prosecutions . It would also be good to make lists of all those who carried out a particular ‘ sweep operation’ in a particular village , who instituted criminal proceedings , on whose information and on which date . It is known from the historical perspective that those people are most of all afraid of personal responsibility , which they would not be able to shift on to their commanders who had given illegal orders . DATE executioners in uniforms and narks without uniforms in GPE , as well as in GPE , will be held accountable to us for everything ... ”

An article headlined “ ORG looters ” ( “ PERSON мародеры ” ) , authored by CARDINAL person , criticised the actions of ORG in GPE and , in particular , accused them of a large - scale extrajudicial executions of civilians during a “ sweep ” operation in a NORP village in DATE . It also stated :

“ In GPE ORG stopped existing as a military force of the ORG , having , once and for all , turned itself into a frenzied gang of looters and murderers ; a herd intoxicated with drugs . ”

In his “ editorial note ” to the “ Declaration of the Committee DATE : a free choice’ ” the applicant stated :

“ We , [ the RKO ] and PERSON , are united with ORG and prepared to cooperate with them . Obviously , we are much more radical than them . We consider that we should not wait until DATE and be worried about the LAW but call on the people to overthrow and liquidate PERSON ’s regime as soon as possible . We also do n’t consider it possible to preserve the contemporary GPE as an integral State . However , we are for a common ground with all our allies , even those who are much more moderate . ”

On the front page the following statement was published on behalf of the “ editorial team ” :

“ PERSON died a hero and he will remain [ a hero ] in the memory of humankind , historians and grateful future generations . He fought the bloody ORG as long as he could ” .

In an article headlined “ The price to be paid for genocide ” ( “ Расплата за геноцид ” ) the applicant wrote :

“ The explosion in the GPE metro is justified , natural and lawful ... NORP have a moral right to blow up everything they want in GPE , after what GPE and NORP have done to them ; no objections regarding humanism or love for humankind can be accepted . ”

In the same article the applicant stated :

“ It has been DATE since GPE and its people [ began ] a totally destructive genocidal war against the NORP people , who before the war numbered CARDINAL people ” .

In an article headlined “ Will GPE be allowed to participate in the Summer Olympics in GPE ? ” ( “ PERSON ли PERSON на летнюю олимпиаду в GPE ? ” ) the applicant wrote :

“ GPE ’s bloody attack on the ORG led to , among CARDINAL of other similar bloody consequences , GPE ’s security forces’ killing of the ex - President of the ORG , PERSON , who had helped his people to repel this attack . ”

In CARDINAL issues of the PERSON newsletter , in a column entitled “ The Good News ” ( “ Благие вести ” ) , the applicant published information which he had copied from various news agencies’ websites , such as GPE , or websites like strana.ru and KMNews.ru . The information mostly concerned events such as deaths of federal servicemen or law - enforcement officers in GPE ; violent attacks and assaults on public officials or police officers in various regions of GPE ; and so forth .

On DATE the applicant took part at an unauthorised meeting , where he displayed banners with slogans condemning the current political regime , such as : “ PERSON is not a terrorist , unlike PERSON and Co. ” ( GPE не террорист , в отличие от PERSON ) , “ LOC ! Do not betray the NORP resistance ! ” ( PERSON ! Не предай PERSON сопротивление ! ) , “ NORP invaders – get out of GPE ” ( GPE оккупанты – вон из GPE ! ) , “ When will the NORP people be freed and rehabilitated ? ” ( Когда будет освобожден и реабилитирован чеченский народ ? ) and also a flag with the words “ ORG ” .

On DATE , while participating in a meeting at FAC in GPE , the applicant , personally and with the participation of an unidentified person , disseminated issues nos . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG newsletter and informed people interested in it about the forthcoming issues , how to subscribe and other ways to financially support the newsletter , of which he was the editor - in - chief .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion that the views expressed in the ORG newsletter amounted to appeals to extremist activities and incitement to racial , national , social and other hatred .

A psychological - linguistic expert examination of the texts published by the applicant was carried out . In a report of CARDINAL DATE the expert stated , in particular , that the impugned texts contained negative emotional assessments of GPE ’s servicemen ; of people of NORP ethnicity ; and of NORP believers . The report further mentioned that , by criticising GPE ’s actions in GPE , the texts gave negative assessments of GPE , as a ORG ; of the existing political regime ; of GPE ’s army as a part of the machinery of the ORG . The report also pointed out numerous expressly negative words and expressions used by the applicants when describing GPE . It also mentioned that the impugned texts positively assessed and justified the actions and activities of a number of NORP separatist leaders and fighters ; terrorist attacks , including explosions , within the territory of GPE .

NORP On DATE the applicant was formally charged with the above - mentioned offences and on an unspecified date the case was transferred to ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) for trial .

At the trial , the applicant pleaded not guilty . He confirmed that he had been the editor - in - chief and publisher of the ORG newsletter but argued that he had printed the newsletter only for himself and had not distributed it . He further argued that he had merely expressed his opinion regarding various political events in GPE , and , in particular , his civic position regarding the ongoing armed conflict in GPE . In his words , he had never called for extremist activities or violent overthrow of the existing political regime in GPE ; he had only called for a change of the leadership in the country .

ORG called and examined a number of witnesses , who submitted that they had bought the applicant ’s newsletter or seen him distribute it for free in public . It also examined the expert who had drawn up the report of DATE . The expert confirmed his conclusions made in the report . A number of witnesses on the applicant ’s behalf were also called and examined .

The trial court further examined other pieces of evidence , including the expert report of DATE ; written complaints from CARDINAL private individuals in which they had stated that the applicant ’s articles had aimed at inciting hatred and had contained insulting language in respect of NORP , NORP believers and law - enforcement officers ; reports of seizure of issues of the applicant ’s newsletter ; reports of a search of the applicant ’s flat and seizure of his computer ; a report on the applicant ’s forensic psychiatric examination , which confirmed that he was fully able to understand the meaning of his actions and to control them .

ORG examined the applicant ’s arguments and those raised by his defence counsel and dismissed them as untenable on the facts of the case , with reference to the witness statements and other pieces of evidence .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of “ having publicly appealed to extremist activities through the mass media ” ( LAW of LAW ) and of having committed “ actions aimed at inciting hatred and enmity as well as at humiliating the dignity of an individual or group of individuals on the grounds of ethnicity , origin , attitude towards religion and membership of a social group , through the mass media ” ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The trial court CARDINAL above , and referred to the texts mentioned in the expert report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It considered that the impugned texts had had a clear extremist leaning and incited actions prohibited by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In particular , in those texts the applicant had called for extremist acts , such as a forcible overthrow of the constitutional order and the President of GPE ; had called for a breach of the territorial integrity of GPE ; had justified and glorified terrorist acts ; had called for violence against the NORP people and abased their dignity ; and had incited religious discord by arguing that the NORP faith had been inferior and by insulting its followers . In those texts the applicant had used insulting language in respect of GPE as a ORG , the political regime in the country , and servicemen of GPE ’s armed and security forces .

More specifically , ORG observed that in various issues of his newsletter the applicant had represented the conflict in GPE as a war between two States – GPE and GPE ; had approved of terrorist attacks carried out in GPE , and of the actions of criminals and terrorists aimed at the extermination of the NORP people as a nation . In this respect , ORG referred to the applicant ’s relevant texts in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , stating that in those texts , while “ mentioning a number of persons implicated in terrorist and extremist activities ” , the applicant had used words and expressions aimed at creating positive public opinion about those persons and their criminal acts .

ORG also pointed out that “ the texts of the applicant ’s articles contain[ed ] positive assessment of the bombings in GPE perpetrated by NORP terrorists as well as the acts of NORP snipers from illegal armed groups who kill[ed ] GPE ’s servicemen in GPE ” . In this respect , it quoted an extract from issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and extracts from issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The trial court went on to note that the applicant had qualified GPE ’s actions in GPE as aggression and had considered ORG to be an occupying force . Accordingly , he “ [ had ] negatively assessed GPE ’s actions and those of GPE ’s armed forces ; similarly negatively [ the applicant had ] assessed GPE as a ORG , ORG as a part of the machinery of the ORG and GPE ’s servicemen as a social group ” . ORG continued to state that , on the other hand , the applicant “ [ had ] represented the events in GPE as a war waged by GPE against the NORP people ( the NORP ethnic group ) and as genocide against the NORP people ” . The court corroborated these findings with reference to relevant texts published in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

ORG also observed that the applicant had justified and positively assessed the acts of NORP rebel fighters , and that he had regarded GPE as an independent ORG with its own President ( A. ORG ) , capital ( GPE ) , constitution , armed forces and Commander - in - Chief , courts ( LAW courts ) and legislation . In particular , in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , the applicant had interpreted the events in GPE as “ a national liberation struggle of the NORP people against the colonial expansion of GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , referred to “ lawful convictions of the LAW court of the ORG ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and mentioned “ President PERSON ” , “ President of the ORG ” , “ Commander - In - Chief of the ORG ” , “ the capital of the ORG , GPE ” ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . Also , in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) the applicant published a “ decree by President ORG ” and in the article “ No comments ” he praised “ President PERSON ” as “ the legitimate President of GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG further referred to the texts in CARDINAL issues of the applicant ’s newsletter published in the column entitled “ Good news ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It pointed out that the applicant had represented bad events in a positive way , that is to say as actions approved by the authors and by the applicant himself and as an example to be followed . The court pointed out that another example to be followed , according to the applicant , had been actions of NORP women putting on “ shaheed belts ” ; in the latter respect , the court quoted a relevant extract from the article “ ‘ NORP syndrome’ inside out ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG went on to observe that “ in all issues of his newsletter ... [ the applicant had ] wilfully made use of insulting characteristics , negative emotional assessments and attitudes towards ethnic , racial , national , religious and social groups ” . In particular , in respect of GPE as a ORG he had employed such negative emotional references as metaphors “ scary noisome abyss ” , “ bloody cannibalistic atrocity ” , “ rotten block ” ; humiliating characteristics “ immeasurable scoundrelism , perfidy , pathological falsity ” and negative attitudes aimed at destruction ( the metaphor “ to spit blood ” ) , which , according to the trial court , was a clear indication of an attitude aimed at inciting bloodshed . The court corroborated these findings with reference to relevant extracts from issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and issue no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG also considered that in the article headlined “ Insanity of PERSON , a guarantee of victory for PERSON ” , “ the applicant [ had ] insult[ed ... ] servicemen of ORG and law - enforcement officers by launching an appeal to act criminally against them ” . In particular , the court stated that “ in that article [ the applicant gave ] an emotional and negative description of the servicemen of ORG as a social group ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and “ [ made ] an appeal for actions against [ army ] servicemen ... , such as requiring an immediate compulsory psychiatric examination of its commanders ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In support of its relevant findings , ORG also relied on an extract published in issue CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It went on to state that “ by publishing and disseminating the ORG newsletter [ the applicant had ] wilfully acted with a view to stirring up enmity and conflict , including armed conflict , on national , racial and religious grounds between citizens living in the NORP and NORP parts of the country and people living in the NORP ” . In this respect , the trial court referred to the applicant ’s “ editorial note ” published in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , observing that in that publication the applicant had “ demonstrated a negative attitude towards the existing political system and GPE as a ORG ” . The trial court pointed out that “ the stance taken by [ the applicant ] concerning the liquidation of the existing ORG regime ( “ PERSON ’s regime ” ) presuppose[ed ] not only actions in conformity with the constitution but also the possibility of deviating from it ( “ to overthrow the regime , without really caring about the LAW ” ) ” .

The court further noted that in the article “ Retribution-CARDINAL ” the applicant had referred to “ the following acts aimed against the ORG and the existing political regime in GPE : organisation of meetings concerning events in GPE , participation in those meetings , writing inscriptions on the walls of buildings , fences and bus stops ” with the contents reflected in the relevant extracts of that article ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also stated that “ the applicant [ had ] also suggested carrying out other unlawful acts against the ORG and the political regime in the texts of his newsletters but [ had ] failed to specify which ” .

ORG then observed that in various issues of his newsletter the applicant had “ intentionally appealed for records to be kept of such acts as ‘ sweep operations’ , ‘ identity checks’ , ‘ counter - terrorist ORG , ‘ unlawful searches and politically motivated criminal ORG , which he [ had ] qualified as ‘ GPE and the persons who [ had ] carried them out as ‘ executioners in PERSON and ‘ narks without NORP ” . The court referred , in particular , to the applicant ’s appeal made in the relevant extract from the article “ Retribution-CARDINAL ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The trial court went on to note that in the article “ NORP [ believers ] went completely nuts ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the applicant had made use of a heading carrying a negative and emotional assessment of the followers of the NORP denomination ( “ went nuts ” ) . However , in the court ’s words , “ the content of the article [ did ] not correspond to its title , because it concern[ed ] an isolated case ( a statement that “ PERSON was crucified not by NORP but by NORP ” , contained in a booklet called “ Foundations of the NORP Faith ” ) ; this isolated case [ was ] generalised from and represented as a typical situation of NORP believers by virtue of using the impugned heading ” . In the same vein , ORG pointed out that in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) the applicant had reproduced information concerning certain NORP nationals held in slavery by certain NORP citizens ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted that the applicant had entitled that article “ NORP have slaves and dare squawk something about NORP ” and had represented an isolated fact to the readers as typical and characteristic of all NORP , whereby he had “ made a negative and emotional assessment ( ‘ to squawk’ ) in respect of NORP citizens as a nation ” .

NORP Moreover , in issues nos . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( DATE ) the applicant had argued that “ NORP people [ православный народ ] had been inferior by using insulting characteristics and negative emotional assessments of believers , discriminatory expressions in respect of the NORP denomination as a religion and stating that this religion , practised by NORP , should be abolished , thereby abasing the national dignity of the people practising [ it ] ” . According to the trial court , statements regarding the inferiority of the NORP faith had been made by the applicant in an attempt to stir up interethnic and racial conflicts in society so as to cause indignation in society and eventually to call for a change of the existing political regime . The court did not specify which particular articles in the above - mentioned issues contained those characteristics and assessments .

Lastly , the court referred to the fact that “ at an unauthorised meeting on DATE the applicant [ had ] called on individuals to support his movement by openly displaying banners with slogans condemning the regime ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and during the meeting of DATE , “ to continue to commit crimes aimed at incitement to hatred and enmity among the population , abasement of dignity of an individual or group of individuals on the grounds of gender , nationality , language , origin or religious beliefs and membership of a social group , the applicant , personally and with a participation of an unidetified person , had distributed issues ORG . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG newsletter and had informed the persons interested in it about the forthcoming issues , how to subscribe and other ways to financially support the newsletter , of which he had been the editor - in - chief ” . In the trial court ’s view the applicant thus had called for extremist activities to be supported by way of their financing on a charitable basis .

ORG rejected the applicant ’s argument that in the relevant articles he had made no appeals to extremist activities , and , in particular , that he had not called for the overthrow of the constitutional order nor stirred up inter - ethnic discord ; and that he supported the constitutional order , LAW and the NORP people ’s right to self - determination and had merely availed himself of the right to freedom of expression . The trial court noted , with reference to the expert report of DATE , that the language used by the applicant in the impugned texts enabled the court to conclude that the applicant ’s actions had constituted criminal offences and that he had clearly abused his right to freedom of expression secured by LAW .

ORG furthermore dismissed the applicant ’s argument that he had been the author of only some of the articles held against him whereas the others had been written by other individuals . The court observed in this connection that the applicant had been the editor - in - chief of the newsletter and , in this capacity , had had the power to shape its editorial direction and he had been responsible for its content .

As regards the punishment to be imposed on the applicant , ORG had regard to the state of his health and the fact that he had no criminal record , had positive references and had a dependant mother . At the same time it stressed the “ high social danger ” posed by the applicant ’s offences and his personality and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court also prohibited the applicant from practising journalism for DATE to run concurrently .

The applicant appealed , referring , among other things , to LAW and stating that as the editor - in - chief of the impugned newsletter he had expressed in it his personal views concerning political events in GPE and his attitude , as a citizen of that country , to the war in GPE . He had not made any appeals for extremist activities and had not declared the superiority of any one religion over another . Nor had he called for the overthrow of the constitutional order , but he had expressed the view that the Government should be changed . The applicant further pointed out that the number of copies of the newsletter in question had been so miniscule that the statements published therein had presented no public danger . He also argued that the measure of punishment imposed on him was excessively severe , given , in particular , the fact that he had no criminal record and had positive references from the place where he lived .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal . It stated , in particular , that the applicant ’s newsletter had been a mass medium despite the low number of copies produced . It also considered that .

The applicant was released on DATE after he had served the prison sentence in full . In his submission , numerous requests by him for release on parole had been refused .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

In DATE the applicant , an information technology specialist , moved from GPE to GPE in GPE to live with his parents and brother , GPE , who were NORP citizens . He resided there on the basis of visas and temporary residence permits .

In DATE , the applicant married PERSON , a NORP national , with whom he had a son in DATE .

On DATE the NORP authorities provided the applicant , upon his request , with an official statement certifying that he had no criminal record in GPE . The applicant had requested the document with view to applying for NORP nationality through the simplified procedure for spouses of NORP nationals .

NORP In DATE the applicant submitted his application for NORP nationality to ORG in GPE ( ORG миграционной службы по Краснодарскому краю ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter “ the FAC FMS ” ) .

In DATE the ORG rejected the application , referring to information provided by ORG ( ORG ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) that the applicant posed a threat to GPE ’s national security .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant about a decision it had made on the undesirability of his presence ( residence ) in GPE and on prohibiting him from re - entering the country until DATE ( hereinafter “ the exclusion order ” ) . The applicant was to leave GPE within DATE of receipt of the letter . He was not provided with the reasons for the decision , its date or number .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the exclusion order to ORG in GPE , which forwarded it for examination to ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , which had jurisdiction under domestic legislation to look at cases involving ORG secrets . In his complaint , the applicant alleged , inter alia , that the exclusion order was arbitrary , that it had been taken on the basis of undisclosed information and that his removal from GPE would disrupt his family life . In particular , the applicant stated that he was ethnically NORP , had no connection with GPE and that his wife and child , as well as his brother and parents , were NORP nationals residing in GPE . He was the family breadwinner and his exclusion would entail distress and financial hardship for his wife and son .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal in camera . The applicant testified before the court and stated that in DATE his brother ORG had been prosecuted by the United States’ authorities for a computer crime perpetrated in that country ; after serving his sentence in GPE , in DATE , his brother had returned to GPE , of which he was a national , and had been offered a job by the ORG . Meanwhile , the applicant and his parents had been pressured by the NORP security services to convince his brother to return to GPE and collaborate with them . Shortly thereafter , in DATE , the NORP authorities had opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of computer fraud . DATE , due to the NORP authorities’ pressure and his NORP ethnic origin , the applicant had decided to move to GPE . In DATE , the NORP authorities had pardoned the applicant and his criminal record had been expunged . The applicant stressed that throughout his time living in GPE he had been a law - abiding person , had been in full compliance with immigration regulations and had a wife and child who were NORP nationals . He pointed out that he was an ethnic NORP , that he did not speak NORP , had no family in that country , and that he had neither a place to live in GPE nor the financial means to move there with his wife and infant son .

Also at the hearing on DATE , the applicant ’s counsel requested that the court examine the factual grounds for the exclusion and allow him to access the documents which had served as its basis . He stressed that the ORG had failed to produce a single item of evidence to substantiate their allegations about the threat the applicant posed for national security . Referring to the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , he pointed out that the authorities had to provide evidence proving the applicant was a threat to national security , given that the sanction against him , the DATE exclusion , would lead to the disruption of his family life . The court examined and dismissed the request , stating that as the matter was within the ORG ’s exclusive competence it fell outside the scope of judicial review . From the documents submitted to ORG , it is unclear whether the ORG presented ORG with any evidence concerning the applicant ’s case , other than its letter to the applicant of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and copies of the relevant legal provisions governing the activities of the ORG and the applicable immigration regulations .

On DATE , DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the exclusion order . Its decision stated , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... in DATE ORG took a decision on the undesirability of PERSON presence ( residence ) in GPE and on prohibiting his re - entry into the country until DATE ...

In his complaint , PERSON seeks to have the decision of ORG declared unlawful and for it to be overruled , referring to the following :

He has resided in GPE for DATE . He has never committed any crime , either in GPE or GPE . He does not have a criminal record . His character has been described in positive terms . He does not represent a threat to the security of GPE . He does not have a place to live in GPE . He is ethnically NORP and wants to work and live in GPE . The ORG ’s decision is unlawful and unsubstantiated ...

... [ According to the applicant ] the court should examine [ his ] case in the light of the right to respect for his private and family life and respect for a citizen ’s choice of the place for his family life . There is no evidence of any alleged criminal activities ...

... the ORG decided on the undesirability of PERSON presence ( residence ) in GPE and on prohibiting his re - entry into the country until DATE .

The application of such preventive measures is within ORG scope of discretion .

The decision [ in respect of the applicant ] was taken by ORG officials within the scope of their authority and the procedure defined by federal legislation and was approved by the competent official .

Given the circumstances , PERSON request to have the ORG ’s decision on the undesirability of his presence ( residence ) in GPE and on the prohibition on his re - entry until DATE declared unlawful should be rejected ... ”

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG of GPE ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) . He referred , in particular , to the ORG ’s case - law on LAW concerning the right to respect for family life . He stated that ORG had failed to examine whether the ORG decision had been substantiated by proof . He pointed out that the ORG had not furnished any evidence to the court of alleged activities by him that posed a threat to national security . The applicant further stated that even though he was a NORP national he was an ethnic NORP , did not speak NORP , and had nowhere to live in GPE as his parents had also moved to GPE in DATE . He further stressed that he had married a NORP national in DATE with whom he had had a son in DATE and that all his family members were NORP nationals . Lastly , the applicant pointed out that he was the sole breadwinner for his wife and infant child .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment stating , amongst other things , the following :

“ ... On DATE ORG issued a decision on the undesirability of the presence ( residence ) of the NORP national PERSON in GPE and on the prohibition of his re - entry ...

In the cassation appeal PERSON seeks to have the judgment of ORG overruled as unlawful .

The court sees no basis for granting that request ...

When deciding to reject PERSON request , ORG had in its possession information which served as the basis for the [ ORG ] order .

PERSON arguments concerning the unlawfulness of the ORG order were examined by ORG .

In those circumstances , the ORG finds that the applicant ’s right to a proper defence was fully complied with and that the reasons for the decision concerning the undesirability of his presence ( residence ) in GPE and on the prohibition of his re - entry , which was taken owing to the real threat he posed to national security , have been confirmed by concrete facts .

As for the applicant’

In those circumstances , the decision of ORG should remain unchanged ... ”

On DATE the ORG issued an order for the applicant ’s deportation . It appears from the case file that the sanction was not enforced as , according to the applicant , he informed the local authorities that he had an application pending before ORG . He continued to reside in GPE .

In DATE the applicant and his wife had another child .

On DATE the police arrived at the applicant ’s home and fined him for a breach of immigration regulations under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) . Then the police detained him on the spot and took him to the court .

The applicant was then taken to ORG in GPE , which on DATE ordered his deportation and placed him in a special centre for the detention of foreigners .

On DATE the applicant was deported from GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant attempted to re - enter GPE but was informed at the border that he was banned from entering until DATE .

The applicant has submitted that on DATE police officers arrived at his wife ’s home in GPE and informed her that he was wanted on suspicion of a crime . The applicant ’s wife explained that he had been deported from GPE in DATE .

It is unclear whether the applicant returned to GPE after the expiry of his re - entry ban on DATE . According to the ORG , the applicant neither applied for a temporary residence permit nor sought NORP nationality DATE .

In their submission to ORG , the Government stated that on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was fined for being intoxicated in public and then on DATE for a violation of immigration regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Government further stated that on DATE the police in GPE had opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of involvement in computer fraud . As of DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending .

NORP In reply to a request by ORG for a copy of the documents which served as the basis for the decision to exclude the applicant , the ORG only furnished a CARDINAL - page copy of the transcript of the hearing of the applicant ’s appeal by ORG on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The first applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , following her temporary suspension from work , instituted proceedings before ORG against her employer , company NORP

NORP In DATE , following her dismissal from work , the applicant instituted further proceedings against NORP before ORG . The actions were joined .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s action concerning the suspension and dismissal and rejected the part of the applicant ’s action against the decision of NORP ordering the applicant to pay compensation . NORP appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision on rejection of the applicant ’s action against the order to pay compensation and annulled the decision upholding the applicant ’s action and remitted the case back to the first instance court .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s action against the dismissal and ordered NORP to pay the applicant the outstanding salaries for the period between the dismissal and the issuing of the decision and dismissed the action against the suspension . NORP appealed .

On DATE the Higher ORG dismissed the appeal of the defendant .

On DATE the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against NORP before ORG on the basis of the final judgment issued in the labour proceedings , concerning the payment of SIT CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order against NORP lodged an objection .

On DATE ORG dismissed the objection of NORP and upheld the enforcement order . The enforcement order became final .

On DATE ORG sent the enforcement order for execution to ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to open bankruptcy proceedings against NORP

On DATE the applicant lodged her outstanding claims against NORP , including those subject to enforcement proceedings , in the bankruptcy proceedings .

On DATE ORG in the bankruptcy proceedings acknowledged the applicant ’s claims , apart from a claim concerning redundancy payment .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings concerning the redundancy payment before ORG .

On DATE ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings due to the pending bankruptcy proceedings .

On DATE ORG issued a declaratory default judgment acknowledging the applicant ’s claim concerning redundancy payment .

On DATE ORG terminated the bankruptcy proceedings and ordered NORP to be struck off the court register of companies . The applicant received no payment from the bankrupt ’s estate .

On DATE the notice of terminated bankruptcy proceedings and the strike - off of NORP from the court register of companies was published in ORG .

According to the applicant she was not aware of the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings and the strike - off of NORP from the court register until DATE when she inspected the case file . Further to her discovery she requested ORG for a copy of the decision of DATE which she received on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings due to terminated bankruptcy proceedings and strike - off of NORP from the court register .

On DATE the respondent Government were given notice of the application . The Government was asked to provide information as to whether section CARDINAL of LAW applied in respect of the present case , which would enable the applicant to avail herself of domestic settlement proceedings before ORG .

Subsequently , on DATE , the ORG submitted that LAW was not applicable in the present case since they considered that the application had been lodged out of the DATE time - limit . Therefore , the ORG refused to offer the applicant a settlement proposal under LAW .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and of making propaganda for that organisation .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before the investigating judge who ordered his detention on remand taking into account the nature of the offences , and the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offences , and the risk of absconding .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged an objection against the decision dated DATE ordering the applicant ’s detention and requested his release . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file , without holding a hearing . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a further objection against that decision . On DATE ORG with ORG dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file , without holding a hearing .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention on remand .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , accusing him of being a member of a terrorist organisation and of making propaganda in its favour .

According to the latest information in the case file , the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before an assize court .


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia)

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

He arrived in GPE via GPE on DATE , accompanied by his wife and the latter ’s DATE child . The couple had a child together in DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in connection with an offence of theft . On DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , which was suspended except for the period of pre - trial detention .

In DATE and DATE the applicant and his wife were arrested on several occasions in connection with theft offences .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for theft .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of a number of offences including robbery with violence and threats , and was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , which was suspended except for the period of pre - trial detention .

NORP On DATE the applicant was sentenced by ORG to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for involvement in a criminal organisation with a view to securing pecuniary advantage using intimidation , deception and corruption .

Having already spent time in pre - trial detention , he was subsequently detained in ORG and then in FAC , where he continued to serve his sentence until DATE .

On DATE , DATE after their arrival , the applicant and his wife lodged an asylum application .

When interviewed in connection with her asylum claim , the applicant ’s wife stated that she had travelled through GPE .

A request to take back the applicant and his family was sent to the NORP authorities under LAW of DATE determining the ORG responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of GPE of ORG ( “ FAC ” ) .

After the NORP authorities refused the request , it transpired that the applicant and his family were in possession of a GPE visa issued by the NORP authorities . A request to take charge of them was therefore sent to the NORP authorities and was accepted on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further asylum application , using a false identity . It was immediately rejected after his fingerprints were checked .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the proceedings concerning the asylum application of DATE had been concluded on DATE with the refusal of the application .

On DATE the applicant lodged a first request for regularisation for DATE , on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( current section CARDINALbis ) of PERSON , Residence , Settlement and LAW of DATE ( “ the Aliens Act ” ) . In support of his request , the applicant stated that he and his wife had a daughter born in DATE and that his wife already had a daughter born in GPE from a previous relationship .

On DATE ORG declared the request devoid of purpose as the applicant had left the country and been intercepted in GPE . It found that the request was in any case unfounded in view of the fact that the applicant ’s medical treatment for tuberculosis had ended ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . ORG also referred to the applicant ’s lack of integration in GPE and the numerous breaches of public order he had committed .

On DATE the applicant lodged a second request for regularisation of his residence status on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . He cited as exceptional circumstances in support of his request the duration of his residence in GPE and his integration into NORP society , the risks that a return to GPE would entail for his children ’s schooling , the fact that he had been the victim of persecution and his state of health .

ORG rejected the regularisation request on DATE on the ground that the evidence adduced did not amount to exceptional circumstances for the purposes of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW such as to warrant the lodging of the request in GPE rather than with the competent diplomatic mission or consulate , as was the rule . ORG noted that the applicant had been allowed to remain in the country for the sole purpose of the asylum proceedings , which had been concluded by a final decision . It also cited as reasons the lack of any need for medical treatment , the applicant ’s precarious and unlawful residence status , the absence of a risk of persecution in GPE and the possibility for the children to continue their schooling in that country .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the application to set aside ORG decision . ORG noted that since the decision in question had not been accompanied as such by an expulsion order , it could not give rise to a risk of violation of LAW .

On DATE , relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and alleging , in particular , that he would be unable to obtain treatment for his leukaemia ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) if he were deported to GPE , the applicant lodged a first request for regularisation on medical grounds on the basis of section CARDINALter of LAW .

On DATE ORG refused the request on the ground that , under section CARDINAL/CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant was excluded from its scope of application on account of the serious crimes which had given rise in the meantime to a ministerial deportation order issued on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request under the ordinary procedure for a stay of execution of that decision together with an application to set aside . He alleged in particular that ORG had referred exclusively to the ministerial deportation order in finding that section CARDINALter of LAW was not applicable in his case , without investigating his state of health or the risk he ran of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW , and without weighing up the interests at stake as required by LAW .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims in the following terms :

“ It is clear from the wording of [ section CARDINALter ] that there is nothing to prevent the administrative authority , when dealing with a request for leave to remain on the basis of the above - mentioned section CARDINALter , from ruling immediately on the exclusion of the person concerned from the scope of application of the said section CARDINALter without first taking a decision on the medical evidence submitted to it , if it considers at the outset that there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned has committed any of the acts referred to in section CARDINAL/CARDINAL , cited above . The examination of that evidence would be superfluous in such a situation since the person responsible for taking the decision has in any event already decided that section CARDINALter should not apply .

As regards the alleged violation of LAW , it should be observed that the decision complained of in the present application is not accompanied by any expulsion order , with the result that the alleged risk of discontinuation of treatment in the event of the applicant ’s deportation to GPE is hypothetical . ”

ORG also dismissed the complaint under LAW in view of the fact that the impugned decision was not accompanied by any expulsion order .

On DATE , relying on the same grounds as those invoked under section CARDINALter of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on his family situation , the applicant lodged a request for regularisation on grounds of exceptional circumstances under section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG refused the request for regularisation , taking the view that the protection of the ORG ’s best interests took precedence over the applicant ’s social and family interests and that by committing serious punishable acts the applicant himself had placed his family ’s unity in jeopardy . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG under the ordinary procedure for a stay of execution of the refusal decision of DATE , together with an application to have the decision set aside ( ORG case no . CARDINAL ) . In so far as necessary , the application also related to the order to leave the country issued on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicant alleged a violation of ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW and argued that his serious health problems amounted to exceptional humanitarian circumstances as defined by ORG in NORP v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) , that he would not have access to treatment in GPE and that the withdrawal of treatment would lead to his premature death . He further alleged an infringement of LAW , on the ground that if he were deported to GPE he would be separated from his family permanently .

A hearing was held on DATE . On DATE ORG ordered a fresh hearing to enable the parties to update the factual and legal evidence in the case . A hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE but was cancelled on DATE .

According to the information in the case file these proceedings are still pending before ORG .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had lodged a second request for regularisation on medical grounds on the basis of section CARDINALter of LAW . In addition to his various medical problems he referred to the fact that he had been continuously resident in GPE for DATE and had lasting social ties in that country , and to his family situation . He also argued that if he was sent back he would be left to fend for himself while ill in a country in which he no longer had family ties and where the medical facilities were unsuitable and expensive .

The request was refused by ORG on DATE for the same reason it had cited previously ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG to have that decision set aside ( ORG case no . MONEY ) .

According to the information in the file those proceedings are currently pending .

On DATE , on the grounds that the NORP authorities did not have responsibility under LAW for examining the asylum application , ORG issued an order for the applicant and his wife to leave the country with a view to their transfer to GPE . However , their departure was postponed because the applicant ’s wife was pregnant .

After the birth , the family was granted leave to remain until DATE because the new - born baby was in hospital . Their leave to remain was subsequently extended until DATE on the ground that the child needed regular supervision by a paediatric gastroenterologist .

The time - limit for enforcement of the order to leave the country was extended several times during DATE because of the need to treat the applicant ’s tuberculosis ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and the DATE course of anti - tubercular treatment required by the whole family .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the time - limit had been extended until the applicant and his child had made a full recovery .

On DATE , in a deportation order issued under LAW , the Minister of the ORG directed the applicant to leave the country and barred him from re - entering GPE for DATE . The order referred to the applicant ’s extensive criminal record , allied to the fact that “ the pecuniary nature of the offences PERSON ] the serious and ongoing risk of further breaches of public order ” .

The order became enforceable on the date of the applicant ’s release but was not in fact enforced because the applicant was undergoing medical treatment at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant , who was in hospital , did not contact his lawyer in order to lodge an application to have the ministerial order set aside . However , on CARDINAL DATE the lawyer lodged an application on his own initiative .

In a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the application as being out of time .

In the meantime , as the applicant was about to finish serving the prison sentence imposed in DATE , he had been transferred on DATE to FAC with a view to enforcement of the ministerial deportation order . He remained there until DATE , when he was transferred to PERSON .

In parallel with its decision of DATE refusing the applicant ’s request for regularisation on grounds of exceptional circumstances ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG on DATE issued an order for him to leave the country , together with an order for his detention . These were served on the applicant on DATE .

Also on DATE it was decided that the applicant should be transferred on DATE to the PERSON closed facility for illegal aliens with a view to his expulsion to GPE .

On DATE the NORP embassy in GPE issued a travel document valid until DATE .

As stated above ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the applicant lodged a request with ORG on DATE under the ordinary procedure for a stay of execution of the refusal decision of DATE , together with an application to have the decision set aside . In so far as necessary , the application also related to the order to leave the country issued on DATE ( ORG case no . CARDINAL ) . According to the information in the file those proceedings are still pending ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the applicant also lodged a request under the ordinary procedure for a stay of execution and an application to set aside , directed specifically against the aforementioned order to leave the country dated DATE ( ORG case no . CARDINAL ) . Those proceedings are likewise still pending .

On DATE , DATE after the indication by ORG interim measure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an order was made for the applicant ’s release and he was given until DATE to leave the country voluntarily .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer applied for an extension of the time - limit for enforcement of the order to leave the country . The time - limit was extended initially until DATE and was subsequently extended several times until DATE .

The applicant continued to make regular requests for extension but received no reply .

On DATE ORG issued an order to leave the country “ with immediate effect ” on the basis of the ministerial deportation order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an interim measure under LAW . Relying on ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , he alleged that if he were expelled to GPE he would no longer have access to the health care he required and that , in view of his very short life expectancy , he would die within an even shorter period of time , far removed from his family .

On DATE the ORG indicated to ORG that it was desirable , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to suspend enforcement of the order for the applicant to leave the country issued on DATE “ pending the outcome of the proceedings before ORG ” .

In DATE the applicant ’s wife gave birth to a child .

In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with “ active pulmonary tuberculosis responding to antibiotic treatment ” .

The applicant continued to be treated for his tuberculosis and received emergency medical assistance and social welfare assistance for that purpose .

In DATE the applicant ’s wife gave birth to their second child .

In DATE , while the applicant was in prison ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , he was diagnosed with hepatitis C and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia ( CLL ) in PERSON stage B , with a very high level of CDCARDINAL expression ( a marker associated with a poor prognosis and a risk of progression of the disease ) . No treatment was commenced .

As his health had deteriorated , the applicant was admitted to the PERSON prison hospital complex from DATE to DATE in order to receive a course of treatment based on ORG ) .

During his time in FAC from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the applicant received visits on an almost DATE basis from his wife and/or his children . PERSON , to which he was subsequently transferred and where he remained until DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) , informed the applicant that they did not have a record of the number of visits he had received .

A report prepared on DATE by ORG , where the applicant was being treated , stated that his condition was life - threatening and that , on the basis of the averages observed in DATE , his life expectancy was DATE . The report stated that , following treatment , his white blood cell count had fallen from CARDINAL,CARDINAL/mmCARDINAL with PERCENT lymphocytes in DATE to CARDINAL with PERCENT lymphocytes in DATE .

During DATE the applicant ’s tuberculosis was found to have become active again .

From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was confined to hospital in GPE with respiratory problems . The medical report concerning his stay prescribed antibiotics and bronchodilators . It also noted an increase in his white blood cell count to QUANTITY , with PERCENT lymphocytes , and the progression of the applicant ’s other conditions . It recommended that the applicant be treated as an outpatient by a lung specialist and a haematologist . This treatment did not materialise on his return to PERSON , where he was being held .

DATE . On DATE a doctor from ORG visited the applicant in the PERSON closed facility , to which he had been transferred in the meantime , in order to carry out a full medical check - up . The doctor ’s report noted that the treatment administered for the applicant ’s lung disease was insufficient . It went on to note that the applicant had not received adequate medical care for his leukaemia , which was progressing rapidly towards PERSON stage C , and that his treatment needed to be switched to chemotherapy combining ORG . Lastly , the doctor observed that no medical examination had been carried out in connection with the applicant ’s hepatitis C. He recommended that the applicant be admitted to hospital for urgent tests and treatment . The report was forwarded to ORG .

In a fax dated DATE the doctor attached to the PERSON facility for illegal aliens expressed the view that the applicant required specialised treatment which could not be provided within the closed facility . The doctor therefore recommended that he be released on medical grounds .

On DATE the applicant was released ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE a doctor from the haematology department of ORG in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , where the applicant was being treated following his release , drew up a certificate which stated as follows :

D. Possible complications if treatment is discontinued . Failure to treat the liver and lung disease could result in organ damage and ensuing disorders ( respiratory insufficiency , cirrhosis and/or liver cancer ) . Without treatment , the ORG could lead to the patient ’s death as a result of the disease itself or the effects of serious infections .

A return to GPE would expose the patient to inhuman and degrading treatment .

PERSON and prognosis

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia ( CLL ) : good if treated , but the risk of relapse is real so that close monitoring is required even during remission . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD ) : stabilisation if treated . Hepatitis C : good prognosis if patient responds to treatment .

F. Specific needs

Regular biological and radiological monitoring in a specialised facility . Chemotherapy centre . ”

The applicant was requested to report to ORG medical service on DATE for a medical check - up and to enable the NORP authorities to “ reply to the ORG ’s questions ” .

The report prepared by the medical adviser on that occasion listed the consultations held and the treatment , in particular chemotherapy , undertaken since the applicant ’s release in DATE . It stated that the leukaemia had stabilised after several cycles of chemotherapy and was being monitored closely , that the applicant was receiving medical care for his lung disease and that his treatment consisted of GPE to prevent herpes , ORG to prevent gastric problems and Flixotide , an antiinflammatory corticosteroid .

Referring to the ORG ’s judgment in the case of N. v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , the report concluded as follows :

“ On the basis of this medical file it can not ... be said that the threshold of severity required by LAW , as interpreted by ORG , has been reached ....

It appears from the file that the diseases to which the medical certificates refer ... are not directly life - threatening . The conditions from which the applicant suffers are serious and potentially fatal but are currently under control .

None of the patient ’s vital organs is in a condition that presents a direct threat to his life . His hepatitis C is not currently causing any cirrhosis . The pulmonary disease is controlled by the treatment , consisting solely of an inhaled corticosteroid . The patient ’s haematological disorder is currently stable . The lymph nodes are no longer swollen and the patient ’s haemolytic anaemia is resolved . Chemotherapy has been discontinued for the time being .

... Neither monitoring of the patient ’s vital parameters nor ongoing medical supervision is necessary in order to ensure the patient ’s survival .

The disease can not be considered at present to be in the terminal stages . ... The patient is close to ORG stage A at present . His chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is also currently under control . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s wife lodged a request for regularisation on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW ( exceptional circumstances ) , relying on her family situation and the length of her residence in GPE .

DATE . On DATE she and her CARDINAL children were granted indefinite leave to remain .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the material time the applicant was the head of ORG .

On DATE he signed a permit allowing a businessman , Ya . , to set up a tent with game machines in the village . This permit had no official stamp on it . According to the applicant , it was not stamped because the council ’s accountant was away on a work matter and had the stamp with her . However , according to the court findings in the criminal case against the applicant ( see below ) , the applicant told Ya . that the permit would be stamped upon receipt of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG – MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE Ya . complained to the police . On DATE he was given audio and video - recording equipment and marked banknotes . When he entered the applicant ’s office the applicant showed him a piece of paper with something written on it , pointed to the bus stop outside his window and said “ There is a man out there ” . Ya . went to the bus stop and gave money to ORG , who was standing there . Later , police officers seized the marked banknotes from ORG in the presence of NORP and L.

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for requesting a bribe .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE the applicant was charged with taking a bribe .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the applicant ’s custody until DATE . The court held that there was no information about the applicant ’s previous convictions , if any , or his family situation , state of health and so on ; therefore the court “ could not authorise a preventive measure , such as pre - trial detention ” . That decision was not open to appeal .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG remanded the applicant in pre - trial detention , since he had been accused of a serious crime and might abscond , hinder the investigation or continue his criminal activity .

The applicant appealed . His lawyer indicated that , when requesting that the applicant be remanded in custody , the prosecutor ’s office had failed to comply with the court decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and had submitted only documents referring to the absence of previous convictions and the applicant ’s satisfactory state of health . The lawyer further argued that the applicant had not committed any crime , there were no indications that he would abscond or hinder the investigation , his state of health was not satisfactory , and that council members and village inhabitants had signed a petition for his release .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted that the case file contained material confirming the applicant ’s wish “ to go to GPE to his brother ” . It also noted that he might hinder the investigation by using his official position .

On DATE the ORG released the applicant on bail .

On DATE ORG again remanded the applicant in pre - trial detention at the prosecutor ’s request . The relevant decision reads as follows :

“ On DATE ORG of Kerson ... established :

The criminal case concerning the accusation of [ the applicant ] under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of GPE is pending before ORG .

The prosecutor requested that the preventive measure against [ the applicant ] be changed in view of the fact that [ the applicant ] , using publications in ... newspaper , is putting pressure on witnesses in the case ( K. and A. ) who have not yet been questioned by the trial court . [ This ] could affect the truthfulness of their testimony and their appearance before the court . In the hearing , the prosecutor further provided additional evidence to confirm the fact of [ the applicant ’s ] putting pressure on ORG , a witness , and the victim , Ya .

Having heard the prosecutor ’s explanations , as well as [ the applicant ] and his lawyers , the court finds that the application has to be allowed on the following grounds .

[ The applicant ] is accused of having committed a crime under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . The sanction established for the crime is imprisonment for the period from DATE . On DATE bail ... was chosen as a preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant ] .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of LAW , preventive measures shall be applied to a defendant with the aim of preventing attempts ... to obstruct the truth from being established in a criminal case . ... Preventive measures shall be applied if there are sufficient grounds to consider that the defendant will try to abscond from the trial or obstruct the truth from being established in a case .

[ The applicant ] has no criminal record , has committed a serious crime linked to his professional activity as the head of ORG , is currently removed from his position and accordingly is not able to continue his criminal activity , [ and ] is well thought of at his place of work and place of residence . However , the court believes that [ the applicant ] , acting through unidentified individuals , has taken steps aimed at obstructing the truth from being established in the case in the course of the court ’s consideration of his case .

Thus , according to statements of DATE made by the victim , Ya . , and ORG , a witness , unknown individuals acting on [ the applicant ’s ] behalf , have put psychological pressure on them , trying to prevent their appearing at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE .

The above - mentioned fact is evidence of a breach by [ the applicant ] of his undertakings .

Bearing in mind that the court proceedings in the criminal case are still ongoing , that ORG , witnesses , have not yet been questioned , and that there may be a need for additional questioning of ORG , a witness , and Ya . , the victim , the court believes that the prosecutor ’s application is well - founded and should be granted in order to prevent further possible pressure [ being put ] on the witnesses and the victim , and thus to eliminate obstacles to establishing the truth in the case ...

Given what has been stated above , ... the court rules to change the preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant ] ... ”

On DATE the President of ORG rejected an application by the applicant ’s lawyer for the judge who was dealing with the case to be withdrawn on the basis of bias . He held that the expression “ has committed a serious crime ” used by the court concerned “ the classification of the offence of which the applicant was accused ” , and did not mean that the court was biased .

On DATE ORG of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal against the decision of DATE remanding him in pre - trial detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , since that decision was not open to appeal .

On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully asked the court to change the preventive measure to a non - custodial one .

On DATE ORG released the applicant on bail . It found that Ya . and PERSON had complained on DATE to the police that that they had been threatened by individuals unknown to them . However , by DATE no further investigation of this allegation had been carried out by the police , so it was decided that the applicant should be released .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to MONEY imprisonment for taking a bribe . The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the principle of the presumption of innocence had been breached in his case .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law .

The applicant served his sentence at ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the prison ” ) from DATE to DATE . According to the applicant , there were CARDINAL inmates in DATE . There was no ventilation . The washing facilities were situated in the basement , which was constantly flooded by underground water . There were CARDINAL basins and CARDINAL taps for CARDINAL detainees . There was no electricity or light at night . The food was of a very low quality and the water was undrinkable .

According to the Government , the applicant was held in a block which measured QUANTITY and was designed to accommodate CARDINAL prisoners , thus each prisoner had QUANTITY of personal space . They did not provide any facts or comments with respect to the remainder of the applicant ’s complaint .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She was adopted on CARDINAL DATE , at DATE .

The applicant ’s adoptive mother also had another adopted daughter , PERSON The applicant ’s mother died in DATE .

In DATE , the CARDINAL sisters were jointly granted title to QUANTITY hectares of forest , based on their entitlement through adoption to inherit land which had been expropriated from their grandmother .

Subsequently , the applicant brought an action for division of the land between the sisters .

While the proceedings were ongoing , PERSON brought an action for annulment of the applicant ’s adoption . She claimed that the main aim pursued by her adoptive mother when she had sought to adopt the applicant had been to ensure emotional and financial support for her in old age and help with everyday activities . PERSON averred that the only aim pursued by the applicant in agreeing to the adoption had been to obtain inheritance rights .

The applicant submitted that the main reason why her sister had lodged the action for the annulment of her adoption had been to preclude her from inheriting CARDINAL of the QUANTITY of land and to keep all the property inherited from their adoptive mother for herself . In this respect she claimed that the lawfulness of the adoption order had never been questioned before , although it had been issued DATE previously . She concluded that the misunderstandings which had arisen between her and her sister after the death of their adoptive mother could not justify the annulment of an adoption concluded in accordance with the law .

NORP In his final oral submissions before the first - instance court the applicant ’s lawyer raised the objection of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff . He contended that PERSON had not proved a legitimate and current interest in seeking the annulment of her sister ’s adoption .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection and declared the applicant ’s adoption void , finding that it had not had a purpose envisioned by LAW . It held that the only aim of the applicant ’s adoption had been the fulfilment of the patrimonial interests of the adoptive mother and the adopted child , and that it had not been intended to ensure a better life for the applicant .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , maintaining that she had lived with her adoptive mother since she was DATE , although the adoption order had only been issued in DATE when she was DATE . She submitted that the family relationship established between her and her adoptive mother since she was CARDINAL had been proved by witness statements which were in the case file , and that it was also attested to in the report drafted by the authorities when they carried out a social investigation in connection with her adoption .

The judgment of the court of first instance was upheld by a decision of ORG rendered on DATE . A dissenting opinion to that decision stated that the adoption had not been improper , as its main aim had been the welfare of the applicant , who had been born into a family with CARDINAL children and a difficult financial situation .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE GPE .

On DATE he received an indeterminate sentence for public protection ( “ ORG sentence ” ) following his conviction of the sexual assault of a DATE girl . The offence had been committed while the applicant was on licence in the community following his release from a sentence for indecent assault against girls under DATE and while he was undertaking the Sex Offender Treatment Programme ( “ NORP ” ) in the community . A minimum term ( “ tariff ” ) of DATE was fixed .

The applicant was initially detained in ORG . It was recommended in DATE that he complete the ORG .

NORP In DATE he was transferred to ORG . He completed an Enhanced Thinking Skills ( “ ORG ” ) course in DATE and the core NORP on DATE . On an unknown date , he completed an ORG course .

In DATE a Structured Assessment of Risk and Need ( “ SARN ” ) report identified that further work was required to reduce the applicant ’s risk of reoffending . It was recommended that he complete the extended SOTP and , possibly , a ORG ( “ BLB ” ) programme . The extended ORG consisted of CARDINAL interactive sessions plus some individual work and generally lasted for DATE .

At a ORG review on DATE the ORG said that much offending work still had to be done in order to reduce the applicant ’s risk and that he should therefore remain in closed conditions .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE ORG . He claims that he had been informed that the extended ORG was available at that prison .

A memo dated DATE from ORG of ORG confirmed that the applicant had been assessed as suitable to attend the extended ORG and that he would have to be transferred to another establishment to complete the course as it was not offered at ORG Acklington .

On DATE the applicant completed the Thinking Skills Programme ( “ NORP ” ) at ORG .

NORP In DATE a pre - tariff - expiry paper ORG review took place . By letter dated DATE the applicant was informed that ORG had not recommended his release . His request for an oral hearing was refused .

The letter explained :

“ ... The [ Intensive Case Management ] decision provides a detailed account of the index offence and your previous offending record ... You are given credit for the offence related work you have undertaken but further work in the form of an Extended SOTP ( and possible a ORG programme thereafter ) is considered necessary to further address your risk factors ... It is clear that significant risk reducing work is required in closed conditions before you can progress further . ”

NORP By letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant that the Secretary of ORG agreed with the ORG recommendation . She considered that a number of risk factors were outstanding , namely sexual offending , feelings of grievance , distorted thinking , alcohol misuse and outbursts of anger . She was of the view that the extended SOTP was necessary to reduce the applicant ’s risk level . She also indicated that an assessment for the ORG programme was necessary following completion of the extended ORG and recommended that the applicant continue addressing his alcohol misuse . The letter expressed the expectation that the relevant interventions , or other equivalent risk reduction work , would be completed prior to the next ORG review . It clarified , however , that the Secretary of ORG could not guarantee to place the applicant on the courses identified as there were limits on the availability of resources .

The review period was set at DATE and was made up the following : transfer to an establishment to undertake the extended SOTP ; participation in the extended SOTP ; participation in post - course reviews ; consolidate and test the skills learned ; continued development and practice of appropriate risk strategies ; assessment for the ORG programme ; continued monitoring of alcohol misuse and relapse prevention work if necessary . The review was scheduled to commence in DATE and conclude in DATE , with an oral hearing in DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s tariff period expired .

The applicant sought advice on possible judicial review proceedings in respect of the delay in providing access to the extended ORG . A letter was sent to ORG by his solicitors . On CARDINAL DATE he was transferred to PERSON .

On DATE the applicant requested information from GPE GPE as to when he would begin the extended ORG . He was informed in reply that he would be contacted to arrange an assessment as soon as possible .

Meanwhile , the applicant ’s solicitors wrote to PERSON seeking information on when he would be allowed to participate in the extended ORG . By reply dated DATE , the deputy extended ORG treatment manager explained :

“ In order that we can be responsive to the needs of PERSON , it is essential that we allow him a period of settling in at PERSON before an assessment for ORG can take place .

Assessments and placements are prioritised on a number of factors including tariff expiry , risk level and treatment readiness . However , please be assured that an assessment will take place as soon as practically possible .

We anticipate delivering CARDINAL ORG in DATE and PERSON will be considered for one of these programmes , if he is found suitable . The extended programme lasts DATE . A ORG report will then have to be completed within DATE of treatment being completed . The ORG report will identify any further treatment that is necessary . ”

On DATE the applicant indicated to PERSON his concern that he might not be adequately prioritised for the extended ORG , referring to the expectation that the course would be completed by his next ORG review . He requested confirmation that he would be prioritised for the extended SOTP .

By reply dated CARDINAL DATE he was informed that PERSON made “ every attempt to ensure prisoners are treated fairly and have access to offending behaviour programmes ” . However , the letter noted that there were limited resources and that there was a large number of ORG prisoners and life sentence prisoners at ORG whose tariffs had expired .

On DATE the applicant ’s solicitors wrote to the Governor of PERSON to notify him of the fact that judicial review proceedings were being contemplated . They sought an undertaking that the applicant would be given access to an extended ORG scheduled to begin in DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was reassessed for participation in the extended ORG . In a report dated DATE he was found not to be sufficiently motivated to undertake the course . The report noted that the second meeting had had to be terminated on account of the applicant ’s use of abusive and disrespectful language and his loud and aggressive tone . It explained that while , given the applicant ’s tariff expiry date , he would have been prioritised for DATE extended ORG course , it was considered that he was not ready for secondary treatment at that time . It was recommended that the applicant complete individual work with his offender supervisor to consider , inter alia , the costs and benefits of engaging in the extended ORG and to address his outstanding treatment needs . Further assessment would take place in DATE .

The applicant subsequently pursued a request for a place on an extended ORG scheduled to commence in DATE .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant of its decision on the papers not to direct his release or to recommend his transfer to open conditions . ORG set out the details of the index offence and noted that the applicant had committed the offence while on a DATE extended licence following another conviction for sexual offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It considered that he had breached the trust placed in him and expressed concern that this might not bode well for the applicant ’s likely compliance with licence conditions . ORG reiterated the applicant ’s risk factors and turned to examine the evidence of any change during sentence . It explained :

“ You completed the Core SOTP in DATE and the Thinking Skills Programme in DATE . It was then recommended that you complete the Extended SOTP . Once this has been completed you will be assessed for other programmes such as the Better Lives Booster Programme and ORG . You are reported to have attended for a programme assessment for the ORG at ORG GPE but prison records state that this was a challenging meeting and that you were not sufficiently motivated to commence the group . You do not agree with this assessment . You will be offered the opportunity to attend for suitability assessment in the future . You have also been put forward for the CALM programme due to the violent offences on your record and difficulties in managing your emotions . ”

ORG agreed that the applicant posed a high risk of harm to children . It commended the applicant on his completion of the ORG and core SOTP . However , it concluded :

“ ... [ T]here is a considerable amount of accredited offending behaviour work still recommended for you to complete to reduce your risks to a level that can be safely managed in less secure conditions . In the first instance it is recommended that you complete the Extended SOTP and CALM and that following the SARN you may need to be assessed for ORG . Clearly this will take some considerable time and whilst core areas of risk remain unaddressed there is no merit in an oral hearing being held ... ”

The applicant was reassessed for the extended ORG in DATE . He was found to be suitable to participate .

In DATE the applicant was informed that he was being considered for a place on an extended ORG commencing in DATE .

The applicant completed the extended ORG in DATE . He was advised that a SARN report would be completed within DATE to identify any further work that needed to be done . The ORG report was completed in DATE .