Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant fled GPE and travelled to GPE following the alleged killing of his father and brother by NORP security forces .

On DATE he was arrested at FAC in GPE , following an identity check , on the ground that he had entered GPE illegally and possessed no passport . He was placed in custody at the police station in the airport .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by a police officer at FAC police station . He stated that he had entered GPE in DATE through the NORP border crossing on the NORP border using his birth certificate and that he had never possessed a passport .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the Kumkapı Removal Centre .

On DATE the applicant met with his lawyer , Mr A. Yılmaz , who also represented him during the proceedings before the ORG . There is no information in the case file regarding the scope of their meeting , nor is it clear whether this was the applicant ’s first meeting with his lawyer .

On DATE the applicant met with another lawyer , Mr F. ORG . The lawyer indicated in his meeting notes that the applicant had not yet filed an asylum request at that point . He further noted that the applicant had caught flu DATE before , but had not sought any treatment and was still suffering from it . It appears from the lawyer ’s notes that at the end of the meeting the lawyer advised the applicant to speak to the officers in charge at the removal centre about his asylum request and his health problems .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , sent a letter to ORG of ORG by standard post complaining that the applicant was being detained unlawfully and requesting his release . In the letter he also brought the applicant ’s health issues to the authorities’ attention and requested medical assistance . According to the information provided by the parties , the letter reached ORG on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant was released from detention and granted an asylum - seeker certificate . He was instructed to reside in the FAC province pending the determination of his asylum request .

On DATE the applicant went to a private clinic in GPE complaining of a cough and fatigue . He was diagnosed with an infection of the lower respiratory tract on the basis of a chest X - ray examination . He was prescribed a DATE course of antibiotics and was asked to return to the clinic for a check - up at the end of that period . It is not clear whether the applicant did return to the clinic for his check - up .

On DATE , as his symptoms persisted , the applicant went to the Süreyyapaşa Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and ORG in GPE . Further medical tests conducted at the hospital revealed that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis pleurisy . He received in - patient treatment at the hospital until DATE . On being discharged , he was advised to apply to a tuberculosis clinic for follow - up treatment . The applicant has not provided any information regarding his state of health or the treatment he received following his discharge .

The applicant claimed that the Kumkapı Removal Centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention , which lasted DATE and DATE . He had to share a dormitory room of QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL to CARDINAL other people , who were provided with CARDINAL bunk - beds . The centre had an overall capacity of CARDINAL people at the relevant time , but accommodated around CARDINAL people . The overcrowding of the centre led to problems of hygiene . The building was infested with insects and there were frequent outbreaks of contagious diseases ; he had thus contracted a serious bacterial infection . The quality and quantity of the food provided was also fairly poor . Moreover , there was no provision for outdoor exercise at the Kumkapı Removal Centre , which meant that he had been unable to go outside throughout his detention .

The Government submitted that the Kumkapı Removal Centre where the applicant was detained had a capacity of CARDINAL persons . The detainees were accommodated on CARDINAL floors : the first CARDINAL floors were reserved for male detainees , and the third floor for females . There were CARDINAL dormitory rooms on each floor , measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY . m respectively . There were CARDINAL beds in each of the CARDINAL rooms reserved for male detainees and all rooms were sufficiently ventilated . There were also CARDINAL showers and CARDINAL toilets per floor , as well as a cafeteria measuring CARDINAL sq . m , where breakfast , lunch and dinner were served DATE on each floor . The detainees had the right to outdoor exercise in suitable weather conditions . A doctor was present on the LOC DATE and the detainees also had access to medical care in cases of emergency . As for the hygiene in the facility , there were CARDINAL cleaning staff working full time at the removal centre , and the building was disinfected whenever necessary .

In support of their claims , the ORG submitted , inter alia , photos of CARDINAL of the dormitory rooms , both of which appeared well lit and fairly clean , as well as of the hallway and the cafeteria on CARDINAL of the floors reserved for male detainees . Although the total number of beds can not be ascertained from the photos , it is observed that there were CARDINAL rows of bunk beds positioned against the walls in both rooms , leaving a narrow corridor in the middle of the room . While some of the bunks were touching each other , others were separated by big metal lockers . No other furniture , such as tables and chairs , was present in the rooms ; there were blankets on the beds in CARDINAL of the rooms and the other room had no bedding at all . A television was available on each floor in the cafeteria . Moreover , a metal situp bench and an exercise bike were shown on the photo of the hallway of CARDINAL of the floors reserved for male detainees . No photos of the toilets or the showers were provided .

The Government further stated that when the applicant first arrived in the Kumkapı Removal Centre on DATE , there were CARDINAL detainees in total ( CARDINAL male and CARDINAL female ) . They also claimed that from DATE until the applicant ’s release on DATE , the number of detainees never exceeded CARDINAL and submitted the registers showing the occupation rates in respect of male detainees on various dates as follows :


CASE OF LONČAR v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

He was an employee of ORG . , a company based in GPE ( “ the company ” ) . In DATE the applicant was appointed head of its GPE office .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed because of an alleged breach of duty . The notice of dismissal was sent by facsimile from the company ’s headquarters in GPE . An appeal against that decision to the competent court in GPE was possible within DATE of the date of its delivery . It should be noted , however , that the relevant legislation at the time provided that before submitting a claim to a court an employee had to complain to his or her employer within DATE of the date he or she received the impugned decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant attempted to send an appeal through the company ’s GPE office by a facsimile , requesting that the appeal be transferred to the competent court in GPE , but it was refused . It would appear that he did not make any further attempts at that time .

After his dismissal the applicant was granted refugee status in GPE .

On DATE he initiated proceedings against the company before ORG ( Arbeitsgerichts GPE am GPE ) , in accordance with the Agreement on Secondments between ORG and GPE , seeking reinstatement and payment of salary arrears . By a court offered settlement concluded on CARDINAL DATE the company agreed to pay the applicant his outstanding salary for DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for the alleged breach of duty . It was alleged that the applicant acted in contravention of the Agreement on Secondments by enabling certain persons , who were neither the employees of the company nor the citizens of GPE , to obtain residence and work permits in GPE .

On DATE ORG declared that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant ’s request for reinstatement . The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the applicant returned to GPE .

After his unsuccessful attempt to obtain the original notice of dismissal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant initiated proceedings against the company before ORG seeking reinstatement and payment of outstanding salary from DATE . As regards the timeliness of his claim , the applicant submitted that he had been unable to approach ORG earlier because of the war in GPE and he informed the court about the pending proceedings before the courts in GPE .

On DATE the company asked ORG to discontinue the proceedings on the applicant ’s appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in view of the new proceedings before ORG . It would appear that those proceedings were discontinued .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex DATE LAW in GPE ) about the length of the proceedings before ORG . On DATE ORG found that the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated , awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction , and ordered ORG one of the constitutent Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina ) to secure a prompt resolution of his case before ORG by DATE at the latest .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were terminated pursuant to LAW .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicantʼs claim and held that he had been unlawfully dismissed . It did not , however , examine the timelines of the applicantʼs claim although the company had raised this issue in their submissions to the court .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Cantonal Court ” ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim finding that his dismissal had been lawful . In view of such ruling , the court did not find it relevant to separately examine the issue of the timelines of the applicant ’s claim . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law . It held that the lower courts had misapplied domestic law in rejecting the applicant ’s claim , as it should have been dismissed as out of time : it was submitted outside the statutory time - limit prescribed by the labour legislation in force at the time of his dismissal ( DATE of the date of delivery of the decision ) . It was also submitted outside the statutory time - limit prescribed by the new labour legislation ( DATE of the date of delivery of the decision ) . As regards the applicant ’s argument that he was unable to reach the courts in GPE because of the war , ORG held that the applicant could have submitted his claim to any other court in GPE under the relevant legislation at the time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . In that connection , the court noted that other cities in GPE , with a few exceptions , had not been under a total blockade throughout the war as was GPE . However , since the legal consquences for the applicant were the same , ORG did not amend the lower courtsʼ judgments ( „ nije mijenajo nižestepene presude “ ) .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision . In so doing , it essentially endorsed the reasons given by ORG and noted further that the applicant could have sent his claim by post or could have authorised someone in GPE and GPE to lodge a claim on his behalf .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants in each case were affected by decisions of ORG ( « Федеральная служба исполнения наказаний DATE , “ the ORG ” ) on ORG allocation to post - conviction penal facilities . The ORG individual circumstances are detailed below .

The application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC . She was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicant is the live - in partner of PERSON The couple originally set up home in GPE in LOC . They have a son born in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr NORP was convicted of drug - related crimes and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment in a strict - regime penal facility . After the conviction became final he was allocated to IK-CARDINAL in LOC , close to his family home .

In DATE the head of the Primorskiy regional department of the ORG decided to transfer Mr NORP to GPE , QUANTITY from GPE . It appears that the basis for this decision was a telegram of DATE from the deputy head of the NORP of GPE that read as follows :

“ The Primorskiy regional department of the ORG are allowed , until special notice , to send CARDINAL convicts per month from remand prisons to the care of the NORP regional department of the ORG pursuant to LAW ORG . ”

On DATE the Primorskiy regional department of the ORG informed PERSON that her request for PERSON to be allowed to remain in the facility in LOC had been refused , and advised the applicant as follows :

“ ... pursuant to LAW ORG and the instruction by the GPE of GPE , on DATE Mr NORP was sent to serve the remainder of his sentence in the care of the NORP regional department of the ORG . You will be notified of his arrival at a penal facility . ”

The applicant challenged the ORG ’s decision before a court , asking for her partner to be transferred back to LOC so that she and their son could afford to visit him .

On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s complaint under LAW ( “ ORG ” ) and dismissed it . It found , referring to LAW on the Execution of Sentences ( “ ORG ” ) , that strict - regime facilities in LOC were overcrowded and that transfers of a number of detainees to other facilities had been necessary for their own safety , as there could be conflicts among inmates fighting for a sleeping place . ORG dismissed the applicant ’s argument related to her family life as unsubstantiated , stating that she could apply to the ORG for permission to visit PERSON in GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s request for PERSON to be transferred from the penal facility in LOC to one in LOC , stating that under LAW of the ORG prisoners should , as a rule , serve the entirety of their sentence in the same penal facility , and that there were no reasons for Mr R. ’s transfer .

On DATE the Primorskiy Regional Court summarily dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant and her son visited Mr NORP in the penal facility in LOC on CARDINAL occasions .

The application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , born in DATE , Miss PERSON , born in DATE , and Miss PERSON , born in DATE . The applicants live in the village of ORG in LOC of GPE . They were represented before the ORG by lawyers of ORG .

Ms Natalya Kibalo is the wife of PERSON . The couple are the parents of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE ORG of ORG found Mr Kh . guilty of kidnapping , illegal possession of arms , and attempted murder of a law - enforcement officer . PERSON . was sentenced to DATE imprisonment in a strict - regime penal facility . The judgment was upheld on appeal .

On an unspecified date the ORG decided to send PERSON . to serve his sentence outside the LOC area .

On DATE Mr Kh . arrived at UVCARDINAL/CARDINAL , a strict - regime penal facility in the town of GPE in LOC , QUANTITY from GPE .

PERSON asked the ORG to transfer Mr Kh . to a penal facility located closer to their home village , arguing that she had been de facto deprived of the opportunity to visit her husband because it would take DATE to travel from her home village to GPE by train , and because the cost of the trip was prohibitive for her as an unemployed mother of CARDINAL young children .

On DATE the head of a department of the ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request , referring to the lack of grounds for transfer listed in LAW ORG . PERSON challenged the refusal before a court .

On DATE the ORG of GPE refused to examine PERSON complaint on the merits , stating that she had no standing to bring a complaint on behalf of her husband . ORG quashed that ruling on DATE on appeal .

On DATE the ORG of Moscow held a hearing in the absence of both parties . It examined ORG complaint under LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG and dismissed it . ORG observed that PERSON . had been allocated to the penal facility in GPE under LAW of the ORG , and that under LAW ORG , as a rule , convicts should serve their sentence in the same facility throughout . It reasoned that Mr Kh . had breached prison rules on multiple occasions both in the remand prison and in UVCARDINAL/CARDINAL , and that he had been “ convicted of terrorist offences in GPE , shows no remorse , and does not undertake to commit no unlawful actions in the future ” . The judgment read , in particular , as follows :

“ The claimant ’s argument that neither she nor her children could come to visit [ Mr A. Kh . ] because he is serving his sentence in LOC can not be taken into consideration , because the possibility of receiving visits is governed by the norms of the ORG and is unrelated to the location of a penal facility . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . It reasoned that ORG had not erred in finding that there were no grounds listed in LAW ORG that would warrant PERSON . ’s transfer to another penal facility , and that “ the appeal statement contain[ed ] no references to circumstances that would refute the [ first - instance ] court ’s findings and demonstrate that there were grounds for PERSON . ’s transfer from one facility to another within the meaning of LAW of the ORG ” .

DATE and DATE PERSON visited her husband in GPE on CARDINAL occasions . On CARDINAL of those occasions , DATE , her travel expenses were sponsored . She visited her husband once in DATE and once in DATE but could not afford to travel at all in DATE or DATE . Miss PERSON accompanied her mother on her trip to visit Mr Kh . once . Miss PERSON , born during PERSON . ’s detention , has never seen her father .

The application was lodged on DATE by Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC . He is currently serving his sentence in IK-CARDINAL in GPE , FAC . The applicant , who had been granted legal aid , was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to TIME years’ imprisonment in a strict - regime facility .

On DATE the ORG decided to send the applicant to serve his sentence in IK-CARDINAL in the settlement of Labytnangi in LOC , located QUANTITY from GPE .

The applicant asked the ORG to transfer him to a facility closer to GPE , arguing that his father , brother , sister and nephew all lived in that town and that they would have no realistic opportunity to visit him in LOC . On DATE the ORG dismissed his request , noting that the applicant had been allocated to the penal facility in Labytnangi under LAW of the ORG because of the lack of strict - regime penal facilities in LOC , and that under LAW of the ORG prisoners should serve their entire sentence in the same penal facility .

The applicant challenged the ORG ’s refusal before a court . On DATE the ORG submitted their objections to ORG of GPE , which read , in particular , as follows :

“ The claimant ’s arguments that he is unable to receive visits from his relatives can not be taken into account , because the possibility of receiving visits from next of kin and relatives is governed by the norms of LAW on LAW and is unrelated to the location of any penal facility . ”

On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s complaint under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , and dismissed it with reference to LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG . The judgment read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The claimant ’s arguments that it is difficult to receive visits from relatives owing to the remoteness of the [ place of ] the sentence is being served can not be taken into account by the court , because the possibility of receiving visits is governed by the norms of the NORP ORG and is unrelated to the location of any penal facility . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

To date , the applicant ’s relatives have not been able to afford to visit him in LOC .

The application was lodged on DATE by Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He is currently serving his sentence in IK-CARDINAL in the settlement of ORG , ORG . The applicant , who had been granted legal aid . was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The conviction was upheld on appeal and became final .

On DATE the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in a special - regime facility for those sentenced to life imprisonment in the village of ORG in ORG , QUANTITY from LOC .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to transfer him to any detention facility located closer to his elderly mother ’s and sister ’s place of residence .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the request , stating that the applicant had been sent to serve his sentence in a remote penal facility under LAW of the ORG , and noting that under LAW of the ORG a prisoner must serve their entire sentence in the same facility . The applicant challenged the decision before a court . In his statement of claims he requested to be present at court hearings .

On DATE the ORG of Moscow held a hearing in the applicant ’s absence , which was referred to in the judgment as follows : “ [ t]he applicant was notified of DATE of the hearing . He has failed to appear at the court hearing owing to the fact that he is serving a sentence ” . The representative of the ORG was also absent . ORG examined the complaint pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG and dismissed it , noting that there were “ no grounds listed in LAW of the ORG that would preclude Mr PERSON from continuing to serve his sentence in the penal facility in FAC ” . The applicant ’s argument related to the difficulties of maintaining his family ties was rejected as follows :

“ The claimant ’s arguments that he can not receive visits from his relatives does not give grounds for allowing the claims , because the possibility of receiving visits from family members and relatives , receiving correspondence , or using the telephone , are all governed by the norms of LAW and are unrelated to the location of any penal facility . ”

The applicant appealed against the judgment and requested that an appeal hearing be held in his presence .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant ’s absence , which was explained as follows : “ under LAW the appellate collegium deems it possible to examine the case in the absence of the parties to the proceedings ; they have been notified of the date and place of the court hearing ” . The appellate court upheld ORG judgment . Referring to LAW ORG , it stated that the rule on serving a sentence in a particular region close to a detainee ’s permanent residence was inapplicable to the applicant given the nature of the crime of which he had been convicted . ORG also found that ORG had correctly interpreted LAW of the ORG , reasoning as follows :

“ ... there were no medical recommendations that would contain contraindications for Mr PERSON ’s serving his sentence in the penal facility in FAC . Other exceptional circumstances that the law connects with the ORG ’s obligation to grant a claimant ’s request to be transferred to another penal facility were not referred to

The argument that Mr PERSON is being deprived of the opportunity to maintain contact with his relatives because of the remoteness of the penal facility can not serve , in the context of LAW CARDINAL of the ORG , as grounds for declaring the actions of the penal authority ’s officials unlawful . ”

The applicant ’s mother and sister could not afford to visit him in ORG . The mother died in DATE .


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicants’ particulars appear in the appendix to this judgment .

During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the “ GPE ” ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter “ LOC ” ) . At DATE the NORP authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over LOC . The operation was codenamed “ Storm ” ( PERSON ) and took place from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . Before the military action , the vast majority of the population of LOC fled GPE . Most of them went to GPE but some also went to GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .

On DATE GPE ratified the Convention .

The applicants and TIME ( born in DATE ) , who was the husband of CARDINAL of the applicants and the father of the others , lived in PERSON , near the larger village of PERSON , on the territory of LOC . During TIME CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE all the family , save for TIME , fled GPE . TIME was killed during Operation Storm on DATE .

According to the applicants , DATE was killed in the courtyard of his house in PERSON , although he was an unarmed civilian .

According to the Government , he was armed and was killed in an exchange of fire with ORG in the broader area of PERSON . The villages of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and the settlement of PERSON are located near each other .

On DATE the police found the remains of an unidentified person in PERSON and they were buried in FAC under the number CARDINAL .

On DATE exhumations were carried out at FAC . The process was conducted under the auspices of ORG for the former GPE ( GPE kazneni sud za bivšu GPE ) and GPE Attorney ’s ORG in GPE . Body no . CARDINAL was also dug up and an identity card was found in the name of TIME The remains were examined at ORG in GPE ( GPE za sudsku medicinu i kriminalistiku ) and on DATE an autopsy report was issued which concluded that the cause of death had been CARDINAL wounds from shelling . On DATE the third applicant identified the remains as those of her father , DATE

The police opened an investigation into the circumstances of DATE ’s death after the applicants on DATE brought a claim for damages with the State Attorney ’s ORG in connection with his killing ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE , who said that TIME had joined a village guard unit during the war . GPE did not know who might have killed CARDINAL

On DATE the GPE police received an anonymous letter stating that on DATE CARDINAL men , V.G. and PERSON , had killed CARDINAL elderly people in the village of PERSON in the “ NORP ” cave , near PERSON .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE and PERSON , residents of PERSON .

ORG said that he had never heard of someone being killed in the “ NORP ” cave even though he had lived all his life in the area . He also said that during NORP QUANTITY people from the settlement called PERSON , part of the village of PERSON , had been killed , including TIME They had all been members of the paramilitary forces and had been armed . He had heard that they all had perished in rocky areas of the village but did not know the cause and manner of their deaths .

PERSON had no information about the possible perpetrators of the alleged crime in question .

On DATE the GPE police informed the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG that CARDINAL persons had been killed in the settlement of PERSON during Operation Storm , CARDINAL of whom was TIME , who had died on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , a captain in ORG during LOC , who had been in command of ORG , who said that he had never been to PERSON and had never heard of anyone being killed there . He had been in GPE ( a town situated QUANTITY from GPE ) throughout Operation Storm . He had also said that he could state with certainty that none of the members of his unit had committed any crimes , otherwise he would have known about it .

On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , a NORP soldier and member of ORG . He also said that he had never been to PERSON and had never heard of anyone being killed there . He had been near GPE ( a town situated QUANTITY from PERSON ) during the military operation .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG closed the investigation .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office informed its counterpart in GPE that it had not been able to confirm the allegations made in the anonymous letter of CARDINAL DATE as there was no indication that CARDINAL elderly people had been killed in the “ NORP ” cave . However , CARDINAL members of the NORP paramilitary forces had been killed during Operation Storm , including P.M. Enquiries had therefore been stopped since the information given in the anonymous letter had proved to be unreliable .

On DATE the applicants submitted a claim for damages with the State Attorney ’s Office in connection with the killing of TIME The request was refused .

On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with TIME ’s death .

The claim was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that it had not been established how TIME had been killed and that the applicants had not proved that his killing had amounted to a terrorist act for which the ORG was liable . It had also not been established that he had been killed by members of the NORP army or police in areas where there had been no operations related to the war . In addition , the claim had become statutebarred . During the proceedings information was obtained from the archives of ORG showing that the NORP army had entered the area in question on DATE , whereas TIME had been killed on CARDINAL DATE . The first - instance court also accepted the statement of the witness ORG , who said that the village of PERSON had been shelled on CARDINAL DATE .

The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ judgments in respect of the ruling that the applicants’ claim had become statute - barred .

A constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .

In DATE the applicant created a local non - governmental organisation , as well as several newspapers .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of interfering with gas pipeline repairs in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG opened another criminal case in respect of the applicant , on suspicion of extortion from a local politician , PERSON As noted in the ruling , on DATE the applicant had sent a letter to Ms B. , demanding CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( the equivalent of MONEY ) under the threat of dissemination of some discrediting information about her . He had also threatened her with physical violence in the presence of several witnesses .

The CARDINAL aforementioned criminal cases were joined .

On DATE the applicant was detained .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered that he remain in pre - trial detention . It referred to complaints by the victim , as well as her representative , about numerous telephone calls from the applicant during which he had made threats of violence . The court also noted that the applicant had refused to comply with the investigator ’s summonses and had stated that he was considering absconding .

On DATE an outpatient forensic psychiatric expert examination of the applicant was carried out in LOC . The expert discerned indications of a paranoid personality disorder with a tendency towards “ forming fixed ideas ” . An inpatient examination was recommended for a more precise diagnosis .

On DATE ORG ordered an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant at FAC with a view to establishing his ability to stand trial in the extortion case . The court referred to the expert ’s recommendation of DATE . It also noted that the applicant had been showing “ inadequate behaviour ” . Furthermore , the case file contained copies of threats and clearly slanderous statements he had made to the victim and certain third parties .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the detention order of DATE .

On DATE another case was opened against him on suspicion of extortion . This time the applicant was suspected of having threatened Mr S. and his family and of having extorted MONEY from Mr S. in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination in the framework of the criminal case regarding the charge of extortion from Ms B.

On DATE the investigator in charge applied to ORG for an extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention ( which was to expire on CARDINAL DATE ) till CARDINAL DATE , because more time was required to complete the investigation . In particular , the following investigative measures were still to be carried out : completion of the applicant ’s forensic psychiatric examination , a confrontation between the applicant and PERSON , and the questioning of a number of witnesses .

On DATE ORG granted the aforementioned application and endorsed its reasoning .

On DATE the inpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was completed . The experts examined , in particular , the applicant ’s personal history and the case - file materials , including the wording of his alleged threats to PERSON They also carried out a psychological and psychiatric evaluation . The commission worded its conclusions as follows :

“ Mr PERSON has never suffered , and is not suffering now , from any chronic psychiatric illness . He has showed in the past , and presently shows , a paranoid personality disorder .

This conclusion is confirmed by his medical history , the materials of the criminal case file , and the results of the present clinical psychiatric examination which discloses that throughout his life the applicant has manifested such personality traits as egocentrism , extremely high self - esteem , tendency to make categorical and subjective judgments , susceptibility and extreme sensitivity to failure and situations infringing on his personal interests , a tendency towards a distorted perception of reality and the attitudes of those around him , militant and persistent assertion of his rightness and importance , subjectivism , rigidity of opinions and emotions , a tendency to be tendentious and contrived in forming judgments , and tenacity in the defence and implementation of his ideas .

The aforementioned personality characteristics are not manifested to a large degree , are not accompanied by serious abnormalities of memory , thinking , critical abilities or psychotic symptoms and would not have undermined his ability to be aware of and to control his actions at the time of the offence he has been charged with . [ ... ]

The present psychiatric condition of [ the applicant ] is such that he is aware of and can control his actions ( or inactivity ) .

He does not require involuntary medical treatment . ”

On DATE the investigator declared the pre - trial investigation complete and provided the applicant with access to the case file .

On DATE the case was referred to the court for trial .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to replace his detention with release on bail in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( at the time , equivalent to CARDINAL ) . He submitted that he had no criminal record , was well integrated socially and that remanding him in custody had been an unjustified preventive measure .

On DATE the court held a preparatory hearing for the trial . It rejected the aforementioned request and decided to keep the preventive measure in respect of the applicant unchanged . The court noted that the considerations advanced by him had already been duly examined prior to his remand in custody . Furthermore , given the fact that the victim , PERSON , was a well - known local politician , the court decided to conduct the hearings in camera .

On DATE ORG ordered another in - patient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant , with a view to establishing his ability to stand trial in the criminal cases regarding the charges of extortion from PERSON and the interference with the gas pipeline repairs ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent an examination in ORG .

On DATE a commission of CARDINAL experts ( with the involvement of the CARDINAL experts who had prepared the previous report of CARDINAL DATE ) delivered its report on the basis of a psychological and psychiatric evaluation of the applicant and the case - file materials . The experts also heard several witnesses . In particular , they questioned a person who had worked with the applicant in DATE and who described him as an intelligent but impulsive person who had some strange ideas and liked to be the centre of attention . The applicant ’s former wife gave a similar description , having also noted that he was a kind person despite his difficult character . The applicant ’s current wife refused to be questioned . A general practitioner who had treated the applicant for some unspecified condition in DATE submitted that he remembered the applicant for his emotionally - expressed nationalist ideas . A lawyer who had often encountered the applicant in court when acting as a representative described him as a bold and provocative person with a tendency to insult others . A circuit police officer , who had inspected the gas pipeline repairs site , submitted that he remembered the applicant on account of certain “ hysterical outbursts ” and that he had had the impression that the applicant had some mental issues . The general conclusions of the commission were worded as follows :

“ At the time of the events [ ... ] Mr PERSON was suffering , and is suffering presently , from a chronic psychiatric illness in the form of a paranoid personality disorder with delusional inclusions ( “ параноидное расстройство личности с бредовыми включениями ” ) .

This conclusion is confirmed by the anamnestic data , the materials of the criminal case file , the results of the present clinical psychiatric and experimental - psychological evaluation , which has disclosed that throughout his life the applicant has manifested such personality characteristics as egocentrism , rigidity in his attitudes , extremely high self - esteem , arrogance and extreme self - confidence , irrational feelings of injustice , a tendency to make categorical and subjective judgments , susceptibility and extreme sensitivity to failure and situations infringing on his personal interests , a tendency towards a distorted perception of reality and the attitudes of those around him , militant and persistent assertion of his rightness and importance , rigidity of opinions and emotions , bluntness , a tendency to be tendentious and contrived in forming judgments , tenacity in the defence and implementation of his ideas coupled with a tendency towards inertia and philosophising , and , as a result of all the aforementioned and against the background of what he perceives as the difficult and unfavourable development of the criminal investigation and trial , he has formed some fixed and delusional ideas about being persecuted .

The aforementioned personality characteristics of [ the applicant ] manifest themselves to such a high degree that they can be considered to have undermined his ability to be aware of and to control his actions at the time of the offences he has been charged with . [ ... ]

The present psychiatric condition of [ the applicant ] does not enable him to be aware of his actions ( or inactivity ) or to control them .

He requires involuntary medical treatment by way of admission to a psychiatric hospital with ordinary supervision .

As to the [ similar ] questions regarding [ the charge of extortion from Ms B. ] , they were already resolved in the report of DATE . ”

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of extortion from PERSON As to the charge of extortion from PERSON , the court held that there was insufficient evidence of the applicant ’s guilt . It also established that the applicant had impeded the gas pipeline repairs . The court noted that the applicant could not be held accountable for the criminal offences in question and required involuntary medical treatment in a mental facility . It stated , in particular :

“ It has been established that , at the time the offences were committed , Mr PERSON behaved in a bold manner and without respect for the victims and others involved , that he made threats to the health and lives of the victims , and that he took deliberate steps to impede the gas pipeline repairs , thus endangering the health and lives of the public . Although PERSON PERSON has not made a direct attempt on anybody ’s life , his present mental condition warrants his involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital , because he is a dangerous person ... ”

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of the first - instance court of DATE as it had been delivered in the applicant ’s absence . It stated that his presence had been obligatory unless he had expressly refused to attend or had been prevented from attending by the nature of his illness . The appellate court also noted that although ORG had found that the applicant ’s guilt had not been proven in respect of the charge of extortion from PERSON , no decision had been taken as regards the termination of that part of the proceedings . The case was therefore remitted to the first - instance court for fresh examination . The appellate court also decided to keep the preventive measure in respect of the applicant ( detention ) unchanged , without explanation .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s waiver of the services of several lawyers who had been representing him . Instead , it appointed a lawyer from the local bar association to represent his interests in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , at a hearing attended by the applicant and his appointed lawyer , ordered another forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant , with a view to answering the following questions : ( CARDINAL ) whether the applicant was suffering from any mental illnesses at the time ; ( CARDINAL ) whether he was aware of and able to control his actions ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether the nature of his illness could be regarded as an impediment to his participation in court hearings . The applicant did not object in principle to such an examination , as long as it was carried out by an independent expert .

From DATE to DATE an examination was carried out at ORG . According to the ensuing report , the applicant was suffering , at the time of the examination , from a “ chronic paranoid personality disorder with delusional inclusions ” . His psychiatric condition was deemed to prevent him from participating effectively in court hearings . As noted in the part of the report entitled “ Psychological examination ” , the applicant behaved in a free and friendly manner , demonstrating an advanced intellect and good memory and analytical skills , but also demonstrating a certain superiority and rigidity in his opinions . The overall findings of the report were practically identical to those of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor dropped the charges against the applicant as regards the interference with the gas pipeline repairs and the extortion from Mr S.

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against the applicant in so far as the aforementioned charges were concerned .

On DATE the court , following a hearing at which the lawyer earlier appointed for the applicant , but not the applicant himself , had been present , found the applicant guilty of extortion from PERSON on the medical reports concerning the applicant ’s mental health , ORG held that , although the applicant had been aware of his actions when he had committed the offence in question , his mental health had subsequently deteriorated to an extent warranting involuntary medical treatment . The court therefore ordered that the applicant be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment under ordinary supervision . The proceedings were stayed until the applicant ’s recovery .

The applicant ’s son ( who had joined the proceedings as his representative ) appealed . He complained , in particular , that the applicant had wrongly been denied his right to participate in the hearing . He also complained that the applicant ’s right to be presumed to be of sound mind had been violated . He noted in this regard that the experts had reached opposite conclusions about the applicant ’s mental health , without any explanation for such a change in their position . Furthermore , the applicant ’s son submitted that neither the applicant nor his family had agreed to the appointed lawyer representing the applicant and that the lawyer had been acting contrary to the applicant ’s interests .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision on the involuntary medical treatment of the applicant . It noted that , as the medical experts had found , the nature of his illness had been an impediment to his participation in the court hearings . The appellate court also held that the application of the chosen measures in respect of the applicant was justified by the fact that he had committed a “ socially dangerous ” crime and that he was suffering from a mental illness .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the GPE to ORG in the GPE region ( “ the GPE ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of CARDINAL doctors from the PERSON hospital who concluded that his condition had stabilised and that he was not in need of any involuntary inpatient treatment . More specifically , the doctors observed that despite his chronic paranoid personality disorder with “ delusional inclusions ” , the applicant had been demonstrating orderly behaviour and a stable mood , with no aggressive tendencies . He regretted his earlier behaviour and had submitted that he understood that it had been wrong . The panel therefore sought the lifting of the involuntary medical treatment order imposed by the court , and an order for outpatient psychiatric treatment to replace it .

On DATE ORG allowed the application of the ORG specialists .

On DATE the same panel of the Geykivska Hospital specialists issued another report , in which they noted a drastic deterioration in the applicant ’s mood and behaviour : he had become irritated , angry and aggressive and had conflicts with other patients . Accordingly , the doctors retracted their earlier conclusion of CARDINAL DATE as premature and asked the court to order that the applicant continue to be treated on an involuntary basis .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE , with reference to the medical report of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided that the involuntary medical treatment of the applicant ordered on DATE should be continued .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal ( submitted via his son ) against the lower courts’ decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was examined again by a panel of CARDINAL specialists from ORG ( CARDINAL member had been replaced ) . They noted that he was well oriented and gave adequate replies to questions , was brief and monotonic , expressed some delusional ideas about being persecuted by criminals , and remained self - confident and categorical in his judgments . As a result , they considered that the applicant ’s involuntary medical treatment should be continued .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled accordingly . Although the applicant , who was present at the court hearing , objected to that decision and submitted that he was in perfect health , the court considered , on the basis of the aforementioned medical report , that he was not able to critically assess his condition .

On DATE the panel of doctors from ORG ( in the same composition as on DATE ) examined the applicant again . Their conclusions were similar to those set out in the report of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG granted the ORG request and lifted the order for involuntary medical treatment in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital . There is no information in the case file on the resumption of or any developments in the proceedings that had been stayed earlier ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . On DATE he was examined by ORG at his own request .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG issued its report . It noted that the only condition the applicant had been diagnosed with in the course of his previous forensic psychiatric examinations was a paranoid personality disorder . Such a diagnosis could not be regarded as fully grounded as it did not comply with the diagnostics criteria of the international statistical classification of illnesses . In particular , while that diagnosis implied a lack of social integration , the applicant had always been well adapted socially and had run a successful business . The wording “ delusional inclusions ” also raised questions as to its clinical accuracy . The applicant ’s excessive personal involvement in various situations , as well as the fact that he had been overly emotional and made peculiar statements , did not imply delusion .

Generally , it was concluded that there was nothing in the case file to show that the applicant had suffered from any serious psychiatric disorder rendering him unaccountable for his actions . Even if , presumably , the applicant ’s behaviour in the stressful situation of his criminal prosecution and detention had disclosed some peculiarities , the report concluded that , given his sufficient social adaptation prior to the criminal proceedings and the absence of a record of any psychiatric issues in the past , the applicant had not suffered from a psychiatric disorder DATE and DATE which would have warranted his involuntary treatment and prevented him from participating in court hearings .

Furthermore , the ORG expert criticised the report of DATE as having reversed the earlier conclusion of CARDINAL DATE that the applicant had not been in need of involuntary psychiatric treatment without any persuasive grounds . This reversal had been made even though the description of the applicant ’s psychiatric condition had remained the same .

On DATE , following a request by the applicant ’s lawyer , an independent forensic psychiatric expert with DATE of work experience issued a report regarding the applicant ’s examinations of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The expert considered only the first - mentioned report to be scientifically grounded . He criticised the other CARDINAL for their incompliance with the rules of diagnostics and the absence of any explanation as to why the same behaviour of the applicant , which had earlier been regarded as normal , had later been considered as disclosing a psychiatric disorder . The expert also concluded that the applicant ’s right to attend court hearings in person had been restricted without any valid medical reason .


András Sajó;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Ms Y. İmrek , a lawyer practising in GPE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of GPE prison in the period DATE and DATE . From CARDINAL DATE to DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places . From DATE to DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places . From DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( second floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( second floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places . From DATE to DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( first floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places . The Government submitted that in cells CARDINAL and CARDINAL the numbers varied CARDINAL , in cell CARDINAL the numbers varied CARDINAL and in cells CARDINAL and CARDINAL the applicant was held with CARDINAL other prisoner .

As regards the general characteristics of the cells , material conditions inside the cells , sanitary conditions and health care , see the judgment in ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , § § CARDINAL to CARDINAL , DATE .

As to the out - of - cell time in the closed section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities , most of which were to take place in the recreation room . There was , however , CARDINAL ORG - metre recreation room per floor , which was to be used by CARDINAL inmates at most ( NORP and Others § DATE ) .

During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and declined some of them . He also had CARDINAL dental appointments and CARDINAL treatments by a psychiatrist . He asked for and was given a psychological consultation , however he did not attend it .

As regards the cell temperature , the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in TIME ( CARDINAL- TIME ) in DATE and DATE had been approximately CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE .


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

The applicants , PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) and Ms Y ( “ the second applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second applicant is the first applicant ’s mother . The President granted the applicants’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP and supported by the case file , may be summarised as follows .

The first applicant was arrested on DATE on charges of resisting police officers and illegal use of drugs . He had previously been convicted of drug use in DATE . On DATE he was placed in ORG no . CARDINAL Prison . On the same date he was taken to a special temporary cell , where an operative inspector on duty , PERSON , offered him the possibility of cooperating with the prison administration . PERSON threatened him with violence if he did not do as ordered by the prison administration . When the applicant remained silent , another prison officer , ORG , who was also present in the cell , asked him whether he wanted to become a so - called “ thief in law ” ( see in this connection PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE , not final yet ) . The applicant refused to reply . PERSON became angry and started insulting and beating the applicant . He was soon joined by another prison officer , identified subsequently as LANGUAGE . They both threatened the applicant with sexual violence .

After TIME of beatings the first applicant was taken to another cell and handcuffed to the doors CARDINAL - naked . PERSON again demanded that he cooperate with the prison administration . The applicant did not reply . PERSON brought in another prisoner and threatened the applicant with sexual violence . The applicant subsequently accepted the “ offer ” by signing a note and undertaking to provide the prison administration with any information that could be of interest to them .

On DATE , CARDINAL of the national private television companies , Maestro , broadcast several secret video recordings of alleged illtreatment of prisoners in Gldani no . CARDINAL Prison . It later came to light that a major part of that footage had been personally taken by a prison officer , PERSON , who had subsequently left GPE . While abroad he had given a copy of the footage to a NORP journalist .

One of the videos shown on DATE by national television and uploaded subsequently to various internet sites depicted the first applicant ’s ill - treatment of DATE . The video , which had been secretly recorded by PERSON , lasted for TIME and included scenes of the first applicant being verbally and physically abused . The video ended with the applicant writing a note and undertaking to cooperate with the prison administration .

In the footage broadcast by the Maestro channel on DATE the first applicant ’s face was only partly concealed . Hence , members of his family , including the second applicant , immediately identified him . They also recognised him based on further evidence . After watching the video , the first applicant allegedly attempted to commit suicide .

On DATE some CARDINAL officials , among them the head and deputy head of the prison department ( an authority in charge of prisons in GPE ) , CARDINAL prison governor and various prison officers , including GPE and GPE . , were arrested and charged with several distinct episodes of illtreatment and torture , including the first applicant ’s case .

On DATE the Chief Prosecutor of GPE concluded a plea bargain involving special cooperation with GPE , in which the latter agreed to cooperate with the investigation in return for being absolved of criminal responsibility . On DATE another plea bargain was concluded with GPE . in which he pleaded guilty in return for a more lenient sentence ( see in this connection GPE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .

By a decision of DATE , the GPE City Court confirmed the plea bargains concluded with GPE and GPE . Accordingly , PERSON was absolved of criminal responsibility , while PERSON was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of CARDINAL NORP laris . By virtue of an LAW of DATE , DATE . ’s prison sentence was reduced to DATE and DATE . As regards PERSON , his final prison sentence for CARDINAL different episodes of ill - treatment , including the first applicant ’s case , after the application of LAW and the respective provisions concerning the calculation of prison sentences , amounted to DATE and DATE . He was additionally banned from holding a public position for DATE .

The Tbilisi City Court delivered the above decision at a closed hearing on DATE and it was served on the first applicant on DATE .

NORP The relevant provision concerning a “ procedural agreement ” ( “ საპროცესო შეთანხმება ” in NORP , saprotseso shetankhmeba ) , or plea bargain , as introduced into the new Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( entered into force on DATE ) and applicable at the material time , reads as follows :

Article QUANTITY and CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The injured party has no right to appeal against a plea bargain .

A plea bargain does not prevent the injured party from lodging a civil complaint . ”


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

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

Mr PERSON is a NORP national born in DATE . He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in GPE near GPE ) , the GPE . He was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP On various dates in DATE and DATE PERSON forced shopkeepers at knifepoint to hand him money .

On DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE convicted PERSON on appeal of various counts of robbery with the threat of violence . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and ordered him placed at the disposal of the Government ( terbeschikkingstelling , hereafter “ ORG order ” ) with confinement in a custodial clinic ( bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) . The judgment included the following reasoning :

“ These serious crimes , committed with the threat of violence , have had psychological consequences for the victims in addition to the pecuniary damage caused . Moreover , such crimes cause disquiet in society and increase feelings of insecurity . ”

After an initial DATE period which ended DATE , the ORG order was extended several more times . In DATE it came up for DATE review once more ( LAW ( Wetboek van Strafrecht ) ) .

On DATE ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE gave a decision extending the ORG order for DATE .

PERSON appealed to ORG , which held a hearing on DATE . PERSON counsel , relying on this ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON the GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , argued that since the judgment of DATE made no mention of an offence “ directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons ” ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) ) , the duration of the ORG order could be DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . It extended the ORG order by DATE , reasoning as follows :

“ Contrary to the argument made by counsel , ORG takes the view that the ORG order is not bound to any maximum duration , since ... in view of the conviction , the qualification and the reasoning on which the imposition of the measure is based , considered in context ( in onderling verband en samenhang bezien ) , the offences in question were directed against , or endangered , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons . ”

Mr Stephanus PERSON is a GPE national born in DATE . He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in PERSON . He was represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON started a fire in a lavatory in an office building by setting a towel alight with a burning cigarette .

On DATE the ORG convicted Mr PERSON of arson endangering property and life . It sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic . The judgment included the following reasoning :

“ In setting the sentence , ORG has considered , in particular , the seriousness of the fact found proven in relation to other criminal offences , in addition to the interest of enforcing compliance with standards and the circumstance that the accused ... has been convicted before .

In addition , ORG has considered the dangerousness ( gevaarzettend karakter ) of the fact found proven and the social unrest to which it has contributed . ”

and

“ The safety of others and the general safety of persons and goods require the imposition of a ORG order . ”

and

“ Since the safety of others than the accused and the general safety of persons and goods so require , the accused shall be confined in a custodial clinic . ”

After an initial DATE period which ended DATE , the ORG order was extended several more times . In DATE it came up for DATE review once more .

On DATE the Roermond Regional Court held a hearing . Mr PERSON ’s counsel argued , among other things , that the duration of the ORG order was limited in DATE four years since it had not been imposed for an offence “ directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons ” .

“ ORG takes the view that the conviction and the qualification , together with the reasons given in sentencing , which refers to the ‘ dangerousness of the fact found proven and the social unrest to which it has contributed’ , unambiguously shows that the crime in question is of the type referred to in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . ”

On DATE the Arnhem - Leeuwarden Court of Appeal , sitting in GPE ( which by this time had succeeded ORG ) , having held a hearing on DATE , confirmed the decision of ORG including its reasoning .

Mr PERSON is a GPE national born in DATE . He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in PERSON . He was represented before ORG by PERSON and Mr ORG , lawyers practising in GPE .

NORP In DATE Mr PERSON induced the staff of a dispensing chemist ’s to hand over medicine by banging his fist on the counter and threatening murder and arson .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON on appeal of extortion and threatening lethal violence and arson . It sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic . Its reasoning included the following :

“ By his behaviour and actions , the accused has caused the persons involved great fear . The facts set out above cause serious feelings of unrest and insecurity in society in general and retail staff in particular . Moreover , extortion causes nuisance and damage to victims . ”

On DATE ORG gave a decision finding that the sentencing judgment failed to make mention of an offence “ directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons ” as referred to in LAW . In the light of the GPE the GPE judgment of this ORG , the ORG order therefore could not be extended .

NORP The public prosecutor appealed to FAC .

Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG gave a decision on DATE extending the ORG order for DATE . Its reasoning included the following :

“ ORG finds that the [ applicant ] was convicted by the judgment of ORG of DATE of :

extortion ;

threatening lethal violence and arson .

In view of the conviction , the qualification and the reasoning on which the sentence and the measure [ i.e. the ORG order ] is grounded , viewed in context , it is implicit in the judgment that the ORG order was given in connection with a crime of violence within the meaning of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , namely :

extortion , involving non - verbal action by the [ applicant ] ( banging a counter forcefully with his fist ) , with the intention to add force to the verbal threat , such action by its nature being aggressive towards the person so threatened .

It can not therefore be said that the possibility of an extension of the [ ORG order ] beyond DATE could not reasonably be foreseen by [ the applicant ] .

Unlike ORG , ORG therefore takes the view that the ORG order in this case is not limited in duration . ”

PERSON is a NORP national born in DATE . She is currently detained in a custodial clinic in GPE . She was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE Ms Wehelie removed her DATE son , who had been taken into public care , from the supervision of the child - care authorities by threatening social workers and a police officer with an object that had the appearance of a firearm but later turned out to be a gas alarm pistol .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON on appeal of threatening the social workers and the police officer with a crime directed against their lives and removing a minor from the supervision of the person to whom the minor had been lawfully entrusted . It imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic without an additional penal sentence . The judgment referred to , among other things , the threatening and frightening nature of the facts found proven . It included the following reasoning :

“ In view of the above findings , ORG considers that the safety of others requires the imposition of a ORG order . Moreover , the safety of others requires the accused to be confined in a custodial clinic . ”

On DATE the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON Jusititie ) decided to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on PERSON pursuant to LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the ORG order came up for DATE review once more .

On DATE ORG gave a decision finding that the sentencing judgment failed to make mention of an offence “ directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of one or more persons ” as referred to in LAW . In the light of the GPE the GPE judgment of this ORG , the ORG order therefore could not be extended .

NORP The public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) appealed to FAC .

Having held a hearing on DATE , that ORG , sitting in GPE , gave a decision on DATE . Overturning the decision of ORG , it found in view of the reference in the sentencing judgment to the threatening and frightening nature of the facts found proven that the offence of which ORG had been convicted was one “ directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of one or more persons ” so that the ORG order was not limited in duration and could reasonably be expected to be extended beyond DATE . However , it adjourned the case in order to seek certain information not relevant to the complaint before ORG from ORG ( Immigratie- en naturalisatiedienst ) and ORG and ORG ( PERSON justitie ) .

On DATE , having obtained the information required and having held a fresh hearing in the meantime , ORG gave a decision extending the ORG order by DATE .

Ms Wehelie ’s ORG order has since been extended for a further period of DATE , by a decision given on DATE by ORG ( rechtbank LOC , successor to ORG ) .

As relevant to the case , LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The court may impose a ORG order on a suspect whose mental faculties were inadequately developed or pathologically disturbed at the time of the commission of the offence if :

CARDINAL NORP the offence he has committed is one which , according to its statutory definition , renders offenders liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE or more , ... and

CARDINAL the said measure is necessary in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or goods .

NORP In giving an order under paragraph CARDINAL , the court shall take account of the statements contained in the other opinions and reports made concerning the suspect ’s personality , and shall take account of the seriousness of the offence committed and the number of previous convictions for indictable offences . ”

All applicants were found guilty of offences carrying a maximum sentence of DATE or more .

“ CARDINAL . The court may order that a person who is subject to a ORG order shall be confined in a custodial clinic if this is necessary in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or goods . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A ORG order shall remain in force for DATE , counting from DATE on which the judgment imposing it has become final .

Except as provided in Article PERSON ... , the duration of the ORG order can be extended , on the application of the public prosecution service ( openbaar ministerie ) , for either DATE or DATE at a time , if the safety of others or the general safety of persons or goods requires such extension . A second extension is possible only when an order as mentioned in Article PERSON ... has been given . ”

“ CARDINAL . The total duration of the ORG order shall not exceed a DATE period , unless the ORG order is imposed in connection with an indictable offence that is directed against , or endangers , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons .

NORP If the total duration of the ORG order is not limited in time , the duration of the ORG order can be extended periodically , if the safety of others or the general safety of persons requires such extension . ”

If a ORG order with an order for confinement in a custodial clinic has been imposed in connection with an indictable offence directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons , the judgment shall so indicate , giving reasons .

All on pain of nullity . ”


Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Conviction;Criminal offence);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The tax inspector conducted a tax inspection in a company in DATE .

On DATE the tax authorities considered that the applicant had received MONEY ( ORG ) as disguised dividends from that company during DATE . An additional tax and a tax surcharge ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) of LAW were imposed .

The applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s application . It found that the applicant had given incomplete information to taxation authorities and tax had therefore been incompletely or partially levied . Therefore the additional tax and the tax surcharges imposed on him were not considered to be too high .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on the same grounds as ORG .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant of , inter alia , tax fraud ( veropetos , skattebedrägeri ) concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of tax fraud as he had under - declared his income . The undeclared income amounted to LAW for DATE and , consequently , the tax imposed in DATE had been ORG CARDINAL too low .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant of tax fraud and imposed a suspended prison sentence of DATE . He was also ordered to pay to the tax authority ORG CARDINAL plus interest . The court found that the amount of disguised dividends was PERSON and that the tax due amounted to LAW .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE in prison . It ordered the applicant to pay the tax authorities ORG CARDINAL plus interest . The court found that , contrary to the opinion of ORG , the value - added tax was to be included in the amount of disguised dividends . The correct amount of disguised dividends was thus ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the tax evaded amounted to ORG CARDINAL .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , requesting that the charges and the compensation claim be dismissed without examining the merits or alternatively that they be rejected . He claimed , by referring to LAW and to the ORG ’s case - law , that the ne bis in idem principle had been violated as tax surcharges had already been imposed for the same acts by a decision which had become final .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE .

On DATE CARDINAL soldiers of the NORP federal forces PERSON and PERSON came to the applicant ’s house to buy drugs . After the applicant sold heroin to them , unknown persons attacked the soldiers , put them in a car and took them to a hide - out where they were kept for DATE . The kidnappers also took PERSON ’s automatic gun . The soldiers were released by law - enforcement officers on DATE . The gun was never found .

On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the soldiers’ abduction . The applicant was the only suspect . Other perpetrators had not been identified .

According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE at TIME he was arrested on suspicion of having participated in abduction of PERSON and P. According to the arrest record , the applicant was arrested on CARDINAL DATE at TIME

On DATE ORG of GPE authorised the applicant ’s detention pending the criminal proceedings against him .

On an unspecified date the investigator questioned PERSON and P. Both of them submitted that they had been abducted from the inner yard adjacent to the applicant ’s house . They had come to the applicant ’s house to buy drugs . The applicant had asked them to enter to help him move the car that had been parked inside . After they had been done with the car , they had been attacked by CARDINAL persons . PERSON had cried out to the applicant for help , but the applicant had done nothing . After that they had been blindfolded , put in a car and taken to another place .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of abduction and theft of firearms and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court relied on the statements of PERSON and P. given during the questioning by the investigator , the written statements made by their parents to whom PERSON had told about their abduction , the written statements made by other soldiers who confirmed that PERSON and P. had been missing in DATE . Investigator FAC . testified in court as regards his questioning of PERSON and P. The court also heard a number of the applicant ’s relatives and neighbours who testified as to the applicant ’s character and the curfew introduced in the village in DATE and studied the materials from the case - file prepared by the investigator . As regards the use of PERSON and P. ’s written statements , the court noted as follows :

“ ... According to [ the rules of criminal procedure ] , if the victim of the crime fails to appear in court , the court , if requested by a party to the proceedings or of its own motion , may decide to have the [ victim ’s ] earlier statement read out in the event of a natural calamity or other extraordinary circumstances preventing the [ victim ’s ] appearance in court . The court considers that the victims were prevented from appearing in court for the following reasons : their psychological state , i.e , their lack of desire to reminisce about the circumstances of the abduction coupled with deprivation of liberty and , possibly , with the life threat , and to live through this again ; lack of safety during the trip to GPE where the political situation is still troublesome , especially ... for ethnic NORP who are not locals ; a risk that the [ applicant ’s ] relatives might put pressure on them ; and the fact that they live far away and do not have means to pay for the trip to attend the court hearing . The court considers such circumstances to be extraordinary and preventing the victims from appearing in court . ”

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE the applicant was released .